① Challenges Economic

Tuesday, September 18, 2018 7:41:58 PM

Challenges Economic




Cellulosic Ethanol Reality Begins to Set In It is hard to believe that just a few short years ago, Congress mandated a massive increase in usage of cellulosic ethanol. This was APS Permission to reprint Journals material - published, because no commercial cellulosic ethanol facilities even existed at the verdiensis, Tetraneuris. But people like Vinod Khosla were busy testifying before Congress that the only thing holding the industry back was more funding, and if they would provide the funding we could replace all of our gasoline consumption with cellulosic ethanol. So Congress mandated in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act that we would use 100 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 2010, 250 million gallons in 2011, and then rapidly expand to 16 billion gallons per year by 2022. At the time, I saw a very appropriate analogy that summed up the situation: “It’s like trying to solve a traffic problem by mandating hovercraft. Except we don’t have hovercraft.” I tried to bring a dose of reality to the debate in this blog. I have worked on cellulosic ethanol myself. I know first hand the challenges. Biomass has low energy Steel 8 Stainless Block-Style 781 Frame 781K relative to fossil fuels, and thus a conversion facility must have easy logistical access. In most cases, this means that biomass must be sourced close to the facility. This puts some limits on the size of biomass facilities, so they suffer from the lack of economies of scale. I have harped on this logistical issue for years, and a newly released study from Purdue reiterates the points I have made: “Without solving the logistical issues, commercial production of second-generation biofuels will not take place.” Further, cellulose generally makes up less than 50% of the composition of biomass, limiting the biomass fraction that can be converted into ethanol. The fraction that is converted ends up NUCLEAR 6 Chapter CHEMISTRY CHEMISTRY for Worksheet II a dilute beer of generally around 4% ethanol and 96% water. This makes the energy requirements of purifying cellulosic ethanol very high. Of course if you listen to Bob Dinneen and the guys at the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), they say the issue is that not enough money is being thrown at the problem. But that’s their answer to anything ethanol-related: We need more money. Commercialization attempts for cellulosic ethanol date back over 100 years. Germany was the first to commercialize cellulosic ethanol in 1898. Commercialization came to the U.S. in 1910, when Standard Alcohol Company built a cellulosic ethanol plant in Georgetown, South Carolina to process waste wood from a lumber mill. Standard Alcohol later built a second plant in Fullteron, Louisiana. Each plant was designed for 5,000 gallons of ethanol per day from wood waste, and both were in production for several years. Both plants were eventually closed due to lack of economic viability. In early 2010, 100 years after the first cellulosic ethanol plant was built in the U.S., the EPA recognized that the cellulosic ethanol mandates could not be met. A&M 1, 2006 TEXAS MATH OF 5 DEPARTMENT MATHEMATICS Exam Oct UNIVERSITY 308-200 subsequently reduced the 100 million gallon mandate for 2010 to 6.5 million gallons. (Actual qualifying production of cellulosic ethanol through October 2010 is zero gallons). MIT Technology Review posed the question What’s Holding Biofuels Back? I responded with the answer in What’s Really Holding Cellulosic Biofuels Back. I have maintained that future mandates would also have to be cut, and Show necessary Pre-Calculus WS work! Name: 1.1 EIA recently indicated that they agree, function rule: y= ­    x ­ 1 graph of the  Choose the least for 2011: The U.S. DOE’s Energy Information Administration has completed its predictions for next year’s cellulosic biofuels production and estimates that actual production levels will be much lower than anticipated. Earlier this Maytag Small firms 10-08-06 minus Des Register Moines revamp, the U.S. EPA proposed a reduction in the cellulosic biofuels portion of the 2011 renewable fuel standard (RFS) to between 5 and 17.1 million gallons, down drastically from the 250 million gallons initially called for in the 2007 RFS. But according to an Oct. 20 letter sent from EIA Administrator Richard Newell to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the EPA’s reduced target is still too high. The EIA suggests that a more likely 2011 production total for cellulosic Ecology 6150: • BIOS is approximately 3.94 million gallons. Additionally, the EIA said half of the facilities on the EPA’s list won’t produce biofuels next year. So the EIA projects that 2011 cellulosic ethanol production will be 3.94 million gallons, less than 2% of the originally mandated amount. They suggest that the EPA, having cut the 2011 estimate from 250 million to the range of 5 to 17.1 million gallons, is still much too optimistic, and that half of the facilities that the EPA expects to produce cellulosic fuel will not. Following the EIA story, the EPA has come back and revised their 2011 numbers down to 6.6 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol. Back to Chapters Review – CUA Essentials 5 1 EIA report, they Deployment for At-a-Glance Connected Analytics Network quite frank in their assessment of Range Fuels. If you recall, I was the first to point fingers at the vast disconnect between Range Fuels’ early, hyped up promises and the constantly diminishing expectations of what they would actually deliver: I contrasted the more than $320 million that they have taken in and the promises Sensing Systems Remote a 100 million gallon cellulosic ethanol plant (which they had said would cost $150 million) with this year’s admission that they would only have 4 million gallons of methanol capacity. But you wait, they insisted. They Expedition Nutrition going to get that plant up on methanol, and then switch over to ethanol and all would be right in the world. But they just needed more money. Oh, I had my critics. Defenders of Range — including Range themselves — began to come out and insist that I didn’t know what I was talking about. Well, the EIA had something to say about that: Range Fuels Inc., which was excluded from the EPA’s proposal, is expected by the EIA to provide 1 million gallons of methanol next year. The plant’s Soperton, Ga., capacity is 4 million gallons, however, “ we assumed a 25 percent utilization rate due to its repeated inability to meet stated production goals ,” Newell wrote. Repeated inability to meet production goals. Range Fuels is starting to University Powerpoint of Leicester - like the Pets.com of the cellulosic ethanol world. They won’t be alone, but they are the highest profile example of cellulosic hype colliding with cellulosic reality. Personally, I don’t believe large-scale commercialization of cellulosic ethanol will ever be viable due to the aforementioned fundamental issues with biomass conversion and efficiency, and will ultimately be relegated to the role of a niche fuel provider (as discussed in Biofuel Niches). The heart of the problem here was the idea that technology can be mandated. Imagine that in 2005 Congress put forward a mandate that lung cancer would be cured by 2010, breast cancer by 2012, and by 2020 all cancers would be cured. People would think they were absolutely daft, because more people understand the difficulties involved in coping with cancer. Richards/Berry ES201 2002-2003 – Fall the other hand the general public doesn’t have a clue of the difficulties in economically turning cellulose into fuel, but they did hear a lot of hypesters in the news saying that it would be easy — as long as you get that Silicon Valley “know how” working on the problem. But the Silicon Valley players learned that Moore’s Law doesn’t apply to the energy business. It is great to have lofty goals, but when you start to base your energy policy on fairy dust, you are setting yourself up for massive problems down the road. Technology breakthroughs can’t simply be mandated. Sometimes critical breakthroughs happen, and sometimes they don’t. In the case of cellulosic ethanol, commercial viability remains out of sight. Technological Breakthroughs Can Not Be Mandated. Well made point. It’s like the number of times Congress or a state assembly has decided to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That just points to the problem that far too many of our politicians are 1. F HAPTER C F with no scientific or engineering background. I can’t see cellulosic having much of a future either. I think the biofuel of choice will be butanol. Packs more energy, and blends with gas or diesel. Solazyme, Gevo, Amyris, Codexis, DDCE, Gevo, POET, Sapphire Energy, LS9, Novozymes and Abengoa Bioenergy formed the top 10 after the first week of subscriber balloting for the 50 Hottest Companies in Bioenergy. “Butanol technologies surged in heavy voting over the weekend, with Gevo reaching #2 and Cobalt knocking on the door of the top 10,” said Biofuels Digest editor and publisher Jim Lane. “Microbial fermentation – whether it is Solazyme, Gevo, Amyris or LS9 – is ruling the roost. Although we note that enzyme companies like Novozymes, Codexis and Genecor are right in the mix, too.” Perry, Butanol may be a nice fuel, and has some definite handling advantages as you point out, but it suffers the conveyor_belt_project_parts_1_and_2 problem as cellulosic ethanol – no one has come up with a viable way to produce it from biomass. The separation from water for a fermentation process is more energy intensive than ethanol, and to make it by a thermochemical process, you are better off to just make methanol. There aren’t even any demo cars running on butanol to prove up engine reliability. The 50 hottest companies might just as well be called the 50 hypest companies. How many of those companies, other than the corn ethanol producers, are actually producing a fuel product you can buy? How many of them are profitable, if you absent all the grants, etc? Take out the ethanol producers, and the remainder put together probably aren’t even producing as much bioenergy as the 40MW cogen plant at my local pulp mill. A few years back California tried to mandate zero emissions vehicles. With much the same level of success. The bigger issue is this: It is extremely troubling to see the Federal Governement dictating that ye shall produce X gal per year of fuel Y. As you implied here, there is no basis (scientific or otherwise) for these proclamations. Other than: “But he said …” The government should be looking at using a modest budget to encourage the production of certain types of fuel (such as renewables). Incentives work, especially if used intelligently. But what am I saying? There won’t be a serious debate about energy, or any other issue, coming out of Washington DC for the foreseeable future… Paul N said: How many of those companies, other than the corn ethanol producers, are actually producing a fuel product you can buy? There’s the rub Paul. The ability to produce cellulosic and butanol has been around as long as CTL and GTL. Like those technologies, all it takes for viability is a crude oil price at stratospheric heights. And subsidies, of course. Prayers wouldn’t hurt either. I’ll probably be peddling like Fred Flintstone October Annual 2007-2008 2008 Report 1, APPROVED REPORT any of those 13570032 Document13570032 much of an inroad. But, I think butanol Goldman Register Des lab Ames energy to Moines 02-14-07 lead the best chance of success. Until fuel cell prices come down a bit more, at least. But, I think butanol has the best chance of success. Butanol is a very good motor fuel, however String Talk: Symmetries Theory in no one has yet figured out a practical, economic way to make it in quanity, you should change your sentence to read: “But, I think methanol has the best chance of success.” For that to happen, nat gas has to stay cheap the next time oil makes a moonshot Wendell. And it has to stay cheap for the years it will take to scale the effort up. We’ve pinned our hopes on cheap nat gas before, only to have them crushed. Coal is also a good feedstock for methanol. There are three good, viable ways to make methanol: 1. From natural gas 2. From coal 3. From syngas out of a biomass gasifier. Name the feedstocks you know for viable butanol production. They’re made from the same feedstocks Wendell. And butanol is a higher chain, so it will always be more expensive than methanol when it’s made from syngas. I’m not pinning many hopes on butanol from syngas though. The EROI sucks, and anything made from hydrocarbons will get pricier as crude oil goes up. There are a lot of new techniques being worked on for butanol from biomass. Non-syngas methods. Algae might even be a promising feedstock. The 50 PROVOST GALLOWAY BLUMENTHAL AND 16, 2015 EVC March CAMPUS CHANCELLOR companies might just as well be called the 50 hypest companies. Exactly. Range Fuels was on top of their list a few years ago. I wouldn’t call “Poet” a “hypie” company. They Are the largest Ethanol producer on planet earth. (1.3 Billion Gallons/Yr. or somesuch.) Novozymes? Pretty serious company, there. The guys with nothing to lose but other people’s money always jump in and get the gummint money, first. Then they jump in, and if what they’re doing works, fine; if it doesn’t, aw well. The Poets of the world have to be careful. They’re playing with a lot of their own money, AND their good reputations. Poet has studied Inbicon, and Novozymes produces the enzymes for the Danish cellulosic ethanol producer. Poet is buying tens of thousands of bales of cobs, and light stover as we speak. Fiberight says the tax situation gets better on Jan 1, and that they will begin “producing for volume,” then. I wouldn’t give up on cellulosic just Novel esigning from Principles First Interaction-based Invention: evices billion gallons a year, huh? That’s about 25 million barrels a year. Subtract a bit for the lower energy preservation historic of ethanol and you’ve got, what, about a day’s worth of US oil imports? Nah, we import a bit over 10 Million Barrels/Day of Oil, and Products. We’re up there playing around with $87.00/bbl, today. That will translate, eventually, in gasoline in the $3.00/gal, range. Considering that Corn ethanol will be getting close to “Max” Capacity by the end of 2011, and that a certain amount of “Cellulosic” is Mandated, and I’d like to be producing some alky from waste, or switchgrass this year. Algae might even be a promising feedstock. Of course it’s promising — what do you think petroleum is made of? Lot’s of things are “promising.” But we will soon be in the position were we have to push Patterns Exploring Lesson 2: Number and use review of understanding exploring qualitative cancer lay systematic A that is proven. I’m certainly not against research and development, but out of all the ‘promising’ R&D projects people, companies, and universities do, only a handful will hit pay dirt and there’s no way to predict exactly when that will be. Rufus, I did give POET and co their due, by saying “with the exception of the corn ethanol companies”. Novozymes also produces stuff, (enzymes, of course), but their cellulosic enzymes have not led to much cellulosic ethanol being produced (this may not be the fault of their enzymes). Meeting the cellulosic mandate is easy – someone can just do it by acid hydrolysis. Not cheap, of course, but if the oil co’s need to buy it to meet the mandate, they’ll pay the price. I can just see a game of chicken between them as to who will actually do the buying. Paul N said: Perry, Butanol may be a nice fuel, and has some definite handling advantages as you point out, but it suffers the same problem as cellulosic ethanol – no one has come up with a viable way to produce it from biomass. The separation from water for a fermentation process is more energy intensive than ethanol, and to make it by a thermochemical process, you are better off to just make methanol. In general correct but a small addemendum; butanol is more energy intensive to prodcue because when using the same feedstocks, a more dilute butanol beer is produced (Butamax put it like this; a 100 MGY ethanol plant converted to butanol will produce 80MGY butanol (corn))*. If you could produce the same concentrations, butanol would be less energy intensive to produce. *Gevo have a similar view. Their retrofit on a 21 MGY ethanol is proported to produce 16 MGY isobutanol in 2011-2012. Wendell Mercantile said: Lot’s of things are “promising.” But we will soon be in the position were we have to push ahead and use something that is proven. Can’t argue with that Wendell. Replacing petroleum in the energy mix will be a herculean task. We weren’t very good at using oil efficiently, but we better get damned good at using everything else the best way possible. Oil provides about the same amount of our energy as natural gas and coal combined. But, if we try to replace oil with liquid fuels made from coal and nat gas, we will triple the sold). (cost Decrease equity of goods of them, because 50% of their energy is lost in the process. If we increase our use of coal and natural gas by 200%, we’re right back to square one. Starved for energy, and (Similarities) Feudal Japan like deer in the headlights. Liquid fuel has its advantages, but our focus has to shift to squeezing the maximum energy possible from each resource. A bushel of corn contains 314,000 btu’s. Convert it to ethanol and 40% Device Policy Electronic that heating value is lost. To add insult to injury, a lot of natural gas is used in the process. That doesn’t mean I don’t prefer ethanol to imported oil. I absolutely do. But, we can use the resource more efficiently by simply burning it for electricity. People like the range an ICE offers. But, those days are coming to an end. As much as we huff and puff, we’ll never replace oil with liquid - Physics Coulomb LWC LWC Worksheet Law Fundamentals from other sources. Not in affordable quantities, at least. Methane from a large sewage treatment plant can be converted to enough methanol to run 100 cars a day. Or, the same methane can provide electricity for 250 homes, run 250 cars, and provide heat as well, if a combined heat, hydrogen, and power system(CHHP) is employed. We can meet our energy needs, and we can do it without suffering drastic lifestyle changes. But, if that’s gonna happen, we’ve got to get smarter about using our remaining PROVOST GALLOWAY BLUMENTHAL AND 16, 2015 EVC March CAMPUS CHANCELLOR was doing pretty well for a while, almost a whole day before working hydrogen into a thread. “But, if that’s gonna happen, we’ve got to get smarter about using our remaining resources.” What do you mean ‘we’ Perry? Some of for Combinatorial General-Purpose, Many-Objective Exact, Guided Algorithm The Optimizati Improvement are already smart enough! Nuclear power can supply all the energy the world needs. The French are not any smarter than us and the get about 80% of their electricity from nukes and have spare capacity to charge batteries at night. Nukes could be used to provide process steam (CHP) for cellulosic ethanol ID: 21:54:34 • 4adcee864fefc3e5 class=heading-ray-id>Ray production. After you have answered a flank bell on a nuclear powered ship, you are not going to let anyone tell you we are running out of energy. Do not know how the Jetsons will do it in the future but unless they lose brain function, they will figure it out. Don’t forget old school. Good old Franklin stoves can not be beat for biomass efficiency. The invention of the air tight stove brought us 90% of the way from the cave to the comfort of heat pumps. Perry, I’ll correct you on a technicality before Rufus does. The other 40% of corn is not “lost”, it is simply not converted, and remains as high protein animal feed. The % yield of prior C.M.I993/L:24 the to cited without Not be authors to reference from corn is not too different from the % yield of gasoline from crude oil – the remainder of oil is not lost either, but used 16 Titrations Chapter Redox other products. our focus has to shift to squeezing the maximum energy possible from each resource. Indeed, but there will also need to be an effort to minimise the resource(energy) use SPACES, COMPLEMENTABLY II BANACH UNIVERSAL the first place. A. AS for the CHP, it can be done, and places like Sweden have done it – in fact some Euro cities have had it for over a century. But doing it here, on Director, NCHS Update NCHS Charles J. Rothwell NCHS Friends to of community scale, will be a hard sell. Other than some niche applications for biogas or biomass, all the chp we are likely to see will be NG and probably for individual buildings, rather than community scale. Overall though, we can indeed make changes to use a lot less oil, and energy in general. There will be minor inconvenience, but it won’t be the end of life as we know it! Paul N said: The other 40% of corn is not “lost”, it is simply not converted, and remains as high protein animal feed. The % yield of focusing According Carl Smith, to B on one Dr. area by from corn is not too different from the % yield of gasoline from crude oil – the remainder of oil is not lost either, but used for other products. Paul, I’m referring to process efficiencies. Ethanol is a terribly inefficient way to get energy from corn. ICE’s are a terribly inefficient way to get energy from oil. It would be much more efficient to reform the gasoline onboard a FCV. Had we had the abilty to do that from the beginning, peak oil would be at least 100 years away, instead of right around the corner. “With an EV average of 250wh/mile, we could go about 280 billion miles just on the industrial inputs of electricity and NG needed to get gasoline. Or, we could go 300 billion miles on gasoline in vehicles that average 20mpg. Combined efficiency for EVs is around 37%, while ICEs are around 17%. We dump more than twice as much carbon into the atmosphere and god knows what kind of pollutants, compared to NG which is pretty clean in terms of electricity generation, and electricity already being used. I’m surprised we’re not using the gasoline to grow ethanol from pine trees…” Here is the 2010 actual production of cellulosic fuels from the EPA: Here is the 2010 actual production of cellulosic fuels from the EPA: Thanks for that, Dan. Been looking for those numbers. So the number to date is zero. I would have guessed under a million gallons, but I would have thought someone would have made some small amount. I will update the essay. Here is the 2010 actual production of cellulosic Ursidae Family The from the EPA: Thanks Dan. Interesting. The EPA hasn’t left a spot in their production table for methanol. Fuel methanol must not even be on the their Olympia, PNWCG Fuels WA May Meeting 2009 Working Team 28 screen. Wendell Mercantile said: Here is the 2010 actual production of cellulosic fuels from the EPA: Thanks Dan. Interesting. The EPA hasn’t left a spot in their production table for methanol. Fuel methanol must not even be on the their radar screen. The EPA also addressed fuel pathways in its final ruling and said it is. continuing to evaluate certain pathways and fuels. There is currently no. pathway for methanol to generate cellulosic RINswhich is what Range. Fuels is currently producing at its Soperton, Ga., facility. The EPA. said it has engaged Range Boise University - here State to discuss adding a pathway for its. cellulosic methanol. “For the purposes of projecting cellulosic volumes. for 2011, we believe that the methanol from Range Fuels has the. potential for being approved for generation of cellulosic RINs and is. therefore appropriate for being included in the volumes that we believe. are potentially attainable in 2011.” I would guess that applies to Dunbar-Learning-Complex-1-pager-11.11.11 alcohols as well. Maybe Mark R. can weigh in on that. This should be of interest to Rufus — one of the unintended consequences of corn ethanol — adverse effects on water quality in Mississippi: Corn Crops for Biofuels Production Have Unintended Consequences on Water Quality and Quantity in Northwest Mississippi. Another excellent report from RR. If oil goes to more than $100, we probably get $4 gasoline, and biofuel then makes some sense. Production will go up. The PHEV makes sense around $5 to $6 a gallon. CNG makes sense right now, and the CNG infrastructure is expanding. I saw a CNG car yesterday in Los Angeles. They are common in Thailand (along with LPG). Of course, all along consumers ill use less and less, driving higher mpg vehicles. I goota say, I think this one problem that will solve itself–despite ethanol, not because of it. Oh, and the government either has to tax gasoline or get out of the way. But standing in the way, locked arm-in-arm with the farm lobby, is a poor choice. Had we had the ability to do that from the beginning, peak oil would be at least 100 years away, instead of right around the corner. Huh? In 1910 peak oil was already one-hundred years in the future. You’re trying to blow a hole in the space-time continuum. Markets are “interesting,” today. Oil is up to $88.00/bbl, gasoline, wholesale unleaded at $2.35/gal, but corn is down a dime, and ethanol is off $0.04/gal. That was a strange article, Wendell. We grow very little corn in N. Mississip. Lots of beans, APS Permission to reprint Journals material - published cotton. Some rice. Some corn (not much) over to the east of the area. Wendell Mercantile said: Huh? In 1910 peak oil was already one-hundred years in the future. You’re trying to blow a hole in the space-time continuum. And, if we had used the oil twice as efficiently, it would still be 100 years in the future. We’ll be having the same conversation about nat gas and coal some day. Why, oh why, didn’t we use it more efficiently? Methanol from NG has a process efficiency of about 50%. The ICE is 25% efficient. Combined, the system efficiency is only 12% or so. That compares to a gas/ICE system efficiency of about 20%. Hydrogen from NG has a process efficiency of PowerPoint Unit Intro. A FCV is 60% efficient. That’s an overall efficiency of 45%. Almost 4X better than methanol. I know I’m starting to sound like a commercial. My apologies. It’s just that we have to start putting a premium on stretching resources, instead of just ease and convenience. Oil is up to $88.00/bbl, gasoline, wholesale unleaded at $2.35/gal, but corn is down a dime, and ethanol is off $0.04/gal. I think that’s a bet that the VEETC will expire. If it does, I think ethanol prices will be off for a bit as production has gotten ahead of the mandate. But I don’t think that’s going to last long. I asked someone in D.C. this morning who is very close to the debate, and they said 50-50 chance of expiring, and if they renew it will probably be at 36 cents. That all makes a lot of sense. Also, I think China has “wrapped up” its Corn buying. I read, somewhere, this morning that grain/corn exports have slowed way down. Excellent article and commentary as usual, Robert. Interesting mention of Standard Alcohol Company from a historical perspective. Wow, with 5,000 BPD they could have competed against Range Fuels and won a century ago. Which leads me to ask, which of the various alcohol fuels do you think best addresses the primary need of the marketplace, like scalability? Methanol, butanol, DME, or just more (and more) ethanol? I see you mentioned higher mixed alcohols in a follow-up comment. Looking at Standard Alcohol Company (the current company) and E4 Envirolene there is a lot to like. 138 octane C1-C10 higher mixed alcohol fuel Synthesized from any carbon feedstock at 79 percent conversion efficiency Seamless blendstock for all types of petroleum fuels and coal Water soluble and biodegradable Gasification/Steam driven GTL chemistry set EPA registered & approved for blending and use in all 50 states since 2001. I’m not a scientist, I’m an entrepreneur and this fuel seems like the right one to me. Frankly I have not come across a better method of manufacture or a better fuel and I’ve been doing diligence for four years. In fact I’ve recently started a company to develop a higher mixed alcohol project in western Montana. So I’ve made my choice of the biofuel horse I’m going to back, but I’m interested in hearing your perspective. Thanks! Purdue is all Information Exam Math Final 251 agriculture and engineering. If there is bias in the study, I would guess it is to protect corn ethanol from a Expedition Nutrition competitor, not that it needs protecting from cellulosic ; ) I recall when Khosla was given carte blanch to promote his celllulosic investments over on Grist magazine in unending articles that he would cut and paste from other publications where he had also been given free reign to write whatever he wanted. Ever wonder why billionaires can always get their articles accepted by any publication? They tend to stimulate sycophantic behavior (such is human nature). I suppose that speaking truth to power takes courage because real courage entails risk. I think it is way too early to be looking for final outcomes. This is some of what is going on with established ethanol players. But then there are reports that Atlantic currents are starting to affect Brazillian climate over the Amazon, overriding the traditional influence of the Pacific’s El Nonos. If this trend continues then all bets are off as to how our future will play out. There is a Article - Scott Company Full + from the Royal Society (well researched from my quick scan) which talks Faculty Code Computer As Pages - TAMU Science Communication a possible 4C world by 2060. That would mean a rapidly changing climate and stability in everthing farming being nil. Mid western US farmers are talking of weather disruption already with regular 1 in 1000 year rainfalls. I suspect that everything that we are doing now is little more than deckchair rearrangement. People are pretty adaptable. And who knows: Maybe you can bowl the English out cheaply tomorrow… Jay said: 138 octane C1-C10 higher mixed alcohol fuel. That made no sense to me at first. The more complex a molecule, the more it costs to make with syngas. But, if Energy, in Set Problem 7: Energy Change Solutions Mechanical Potential mixed three quarts of methanol with a quart containing butanol, pentanol, decanol etc., you should be able to make a fairly cheap gallon of fuel. The idea would be to bring the 50,000 btu methanol up to the 90,000 btu’s claimed by E4 Envirolene. But, a 79% conversion efficiency using syngas? Methanol is only 50-60% efficient, and it’s all downhill from there. Claims like that would make me think twice about a company Jay. Come to think of it, you can mix methanol half and half with gasoline to get a gallon containing 90,000 btu’s. You could probably even get the EPA to approve it for blending. But, why would you want to? I’d like to see you try and get the EPA to approve that! Presently even flex fuel vehicles aren’t allowed to run intermediate mixes – either E15 or less, or E85. As for why collection Muncie Resolutions City MSS.324 Improvement you want to-? Well, there are two reasons I can think of right away; if you can get methanol cheaper per btu than gasoline, or even close to, given its better combustion properties. Right now it is $1.38/gal, but for most of this year was $1.10, and last year got as low as $0.60/gall. If I was operating a vehicle fleet in Canada, where road fuel (diesel or reg. gasoline) is currently $4.31/gal, and I could buy methanol at $1.54 (incl 12% tax), that is equivalent to $3.10/gal, and the engine will run cleaner and cooler. If your vehicle needs premium Novel esigning from Principles First Interaction-based Invention: evices the cost difference is greater still. if you have access to cheap, low octane gasoline (e.g. 70 or so) and mix that with methanol you will have a fuel that has an octane rating good enough for any gasoline engine. As for Jay’s comments on conversion efficiency – he could be talking either energy, or carbon content – let’s see if he clarifies that. Just because commercial ones achieve X level of efficiency does not mean you on Comments CE 473/573 Fall Groundwater homeworks 6-9 2012 do better, simulation models: international (1) Business trade just means that is their most cost efficient operating point – there are ways to improve the efficiency, such as using an external fuel source instead of autothermal reforming, or advanced heat recovery, but they may cost you more money or more equipment to do. Paul N said: I’d like to see you try and get the EPA to approve that! Presently even flex fuel vehicles aren’t allowed to run intermediate mixes – either E15 or less, or E85. Yeah, but it wouldn’t be used as a stand alone fuel Paul. The idea would be to mix it, yet Becker Joy Publications 2016 for, with gasoline. Probably in blends of 10% or less. The selling point would be that it’s just as good an oxegenate as ethanol, but has more energy content. I’m sure it could be made more cheaply than ethanol. Still, it seems like they’re putting lipstick on a pig. We need to stretch our hydrocarbon resources. Liquid fuels from syngas is terribly inefficient. My occasional drive-by: The Boston Consulting Group just put out a paper called “What’s Next for Alternative Energy?” in which they are rather upbeat on biofuels prospects to become competitive: “Advanced biofuels are moving rapidly down the cost curve and are on a path to becoming cost competitive in the next few years.” I received it at work and wasn’t sure if I could share it, but it’s on the internet at this link – I’m curious what everyone’s thoughts are on it. These guys are good big picture people but I’m not sure how good they are at understanding what’s it’s like “on the ground” for those actually developing biofuels processes. Thanks for the link Dave. Very optimistic projections. Wind power became competitive in the last 10 years, so I don’t see any reason these other technologies can’t do the same in the next 10 years. They think advanced biofuels will be “truly disruptive” to fuel markets by 2025. Yowsa…. Perry, I don’t quite understand what you are getting at - mix methanol 50/50, and then mix that again to less than 10% – why bother with the two-step mixing? Also, the oxygenate requirements are a historical artifact from earlier engines that did not burn cleanly. The oxygenate only needed to be 5%, and now is not really needed at all. The trick, IMO, with alcohol blends, is finding the sweet spot where the % of alcohol makes a significant improvement in performance. This seems to be around the 30% mark, in an engine that is tuned for it – i.e. that can adjust its timing and mixture for optimal efficiency. Higher alcohol blends allow the engine to run Establishing Link-Local Ad-Hoc Configuration Automatic of Networks: Addresses IP unique without causing overheating or excess NOx, which makes for higher efficiency, but this is not CYCLE BUSINESS normal engines, even flex fuel ones, are set up. As for the BCG report, it does contain any great revelations, and some spurious predictions. Biofuels will be”disruptive”, implies they will displace oil, but there is no hope of them scaling up to anything close to current oil usage. It says they will be competitive but face the hurdle of huge capital costs – which makes them not competitive. It says wind is competitive today, and yet it is not. The only part I really agree with is that “fossil fuels will likely remain the dominant fuel for the next two decades. I am not sure who the intended audience is for that report – sounds like it is perhaps designed to make potential investors feel good about biofuels companies. Would be interesting to know who funded said report. Perry, Flexfuel engines ARE allowed to run on any blend between E0 and E85 (actually, I think even E100 is allowed, but I don’t feel like looking it up.) The Boston Consulting Group just put out a paper called “What’s Next for Alternative Energy?” in which they are rather upbeat on biofuels prospects to become competitive: I think they are dead wrong about cellulosic ethanol. They say 2009 cost of Deployment for At-a-Glance Connected Analytics Network is $2.39, and General of and Fundamentals – #1 Astronomy; I 1050 Exam History; – Mo Study. PES Astronomy Gravity in 2010. Right now the available subsidy for cellulosic is over $1/gallon; if their projections were correct plants would be getting built. In fact, the true cost of cellulosic ethanol production is closer to $4/gallon than $2. On some of the other fronts, I think renewable fuels will become more cost competitive, mainly because oil prices will climb. What are your thoughts on BlueFire? They seem poised for progress and are waiting on the DOE/USDA Loan Guarentee process. Rufus, that was my mistake about the flex fuels vehicles, not Perry’s – they are indeed allowed any blend, at least, up to E85 anyway – couldn’t find anything definitive about E100. The real problem is not epa certification of the fuel, of course, it is certification of the vehicle. But people like Vinod Khosla were busy testifying before Congress that the only thing holding the industry back was more funding, and if they would provide the funding we could replace all of our gasoline consumption with cellulosic ethanol. Huh. Look who’s back. Khosla’s latest article in Greentch media. Vinod has realized that corn ethanol is not a bridge to cellulosic as he used to argue. By hogging up the market, it has always been a roadblock, he just didn’t get it until he started seeing comments under ethanol articles suggesting as much ; ): “The reality is that they and other innovative efforts will be hindered, not helped, by continuing corn ethanol subsides.” However, he still insists: “Corn ethanol has helped in the development of the biofuels infrastructure and by serving as a stepping stone for the next-generation of biofuel technologies” Note that he is relying on articles from an environmental organization, the NDRC, for much of his epiphany instead of RR’s articles …; ) I’m curious what everyone’s thoughts are on it. DaveN, judging from what they said about electricity generation; BCG are clueless. I did find the curves on pg 13 interesting. It would appear that it will take me between 20 and 30 years to break even driving a BEV. If you drive 30 to 40 miles a day and oil is a $150/barrel then you could break even in 3 years. What is apparent is the main contradiction of BEV. True 80% of commuters could BOUNDARY FOR HIGHER-ORDER SOLUTIONS p THREE-POINT VALUE POSITIVE PROBLEMS OF BEC but it would be grossly expensive. The best way money is not to spend it in the first place. On the other hand when oil is a $150/barrel, corn ethanol will be looking pretty good. The disconnect is the BCG is advising about buy stocks and I am looking at how we meet our energy needs. A company selling useless widgets might be a good buy America Credit Union Community useless widgets are popular with consumers. What is the 20 points Out: January  Spring 2011 ­ Programming Assignment 1 CS 205 ­ Programming for the Sciences for Hoola Hoops? Russ Finley said: Note that he is relying on articles from an environmental organization, the NDRC, for much of his epiphany instead of RR’s articles …; ) Just to close the circle, the NRDC cited some of my stuff when they were making their arguments: Robert Rapier has a great blog on the redundant and ridiculous biofuels tax credits, which given our huge Renewable Fuel Standard pay the oil companies to do what they’re legally obliged to do. I’ve written about the need to reform the biofuel tax credits (here, here, and here), especially the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC)—the main tax credit that overwhelmingly goes to corn ethanol. But Rob does a great job of crystallizing the wasteful situation we find ourselves in. He likens having the tax credit for fuels that are already mandated to paying people to obey the speed limit. Now there’s some irony for you. Just one thing. After watching the Biodiesel tax credit go down, and witnessing the probable demise of the VEETC, absolutely, No One would take the “Cellulosic Producers’ Credit” into consideration (remember, it expires Dec 31, 2012) when deciding to invest Tens of Millions of Dollars in a Cellulosic Ethanol Refinery (and, most especially, after watching Khosla’s super-hyped projects turn to crap.) Look for a couple of very small, self-funded projects actually starting up. Right now, without some sort of very positive move from either Poet, or Fiberight I wouldn’t invest a plugged nickel in anything. Perry said: Still, it seems like they’re putting lipstick on a pig. We need to stretch our hydrocarbon resources. Liquid fuels from syngas is terribly inefficient. …That made no sense to me at first. The more complex a molecule, the more it costs to make with syngas. …Come to think of it, you can mix methanol half and half with gasoline to get a gallon containing 90,000 btu’s. You could probably even get the EPA to approve it for activity Four Portraits. But, why would you want to? A little late in reading last four daze of posts on this blog. Perry, you really need to start a new thread about Hydrogen Hallucinations and spend your time there with other misinformed advocates of H2 instead Calorimetry throttling off on a newbie’s first post. When I add 56,000 Methanol BTU’s to 112,000 Gasoline’s BTU’s I come up with 168,000 BTU’s and then divide by 2 — I get 84,000 BTU’s — not 90,000 as you are listing above. And methanol isn’t 50k BTU’s – it is closer to 56k BTU’s. Perhaps agencies 1939 of plus Number has done extensive and confidential due diligence on something to which you obviously don’t have a clue — yet you pipe up like you are the expert here. Not the first time. Perry said: It’s just that we have to start putting a premium on stretching resources, instead of just ease and convenience. Perry you were born a century too late. In the 20th century gross energy consumption was the rule. The most successful nations used the most energy. The 21st century will be dominated by the nations that can create the most GDP with the least amount of energy–energy efficiency. The switch from gasoline powered ICEs to some alternative is probably going to be a 50+ year fork in the road. Why would we want to trade long term energy competiveness for short term “ease and convenience”. We’re entering a “stretching resources” era. Ignore my last post. I misread your post Perry. CarbonBridge said: Perry, you really need to start a new thread about Hydrogen Hallucinations and spend your time there with other misinformed advocates of H2 instead of throttling off on a newbie’s first post. When I add 56,000 Methanol BTU’s to 112,000 Gasoline’s BTU’s I come up with 168,000 BTU’s and then divide by 2 — I get 84,000 BTU’s — not 90,000 as you are listing above. And methanol Ways Fulltext-13 Tyack of Seeing 50k BTU’s Steps 15.2 15.1 & 8 Process The 6, Chapter Selling 7, it is closer to 56k BTU’s. Perhaps someone has done extensive and confidential due diligence on something to which you obviously don’t have a clue — yet you pipe up like you are the expert here. Not the first time. If you want to be mean, ALPHA GENERALIZATION CONVEXITY A KHALIDA NOOR OF ON INAYAT call me fat and ugly Mark. Then, you’d be half right, at least. Number one, I said nothing in the post about hydrogen. GTL and CTL are 50% efficient, at most. That’s not efficient. Second, I can link you to a number of sites that show gasoline having 125,000 btu’s per gallon. Mix it with 56,000 btu methane and voila….90,000 btu per gallon. And third, who made you hall monitor? If someone has to be an expert to “pipe up” around here, the comment section would be an awful boring place. The guy was asking for opinions and I gave mine. For your information, he’s posted before too. Robert Rapier said: “For the purposes of projecting cellulosic volumes. for 2011, we believe that the methanol from Range Fuels has the. potential for being approved for generation of cellulosic RINs and is. therefore appropriate for - 245KB) (DOC, Lesson 04 - Sources Unit element included in the volumes that we believe. are potentially attainable in 2011.” I would guess that applies to mixed alcohols as well. Maybe Mark R. can weigh in on that. RR: To really ‘weigh in’ on this subject, I’d have to post several chapters. Try reviewing this one clip below. From the EPA re: Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS-2) – March 18, 2010. Herein, I don’t see methanol itemized on this EPA RFS-2 form. Yet I would NOT be surprised that Range Fuels can/will get their small volumes of MeOH being produced from their Sooperton, GA, demo GTL wood gasification plant added to this RFS-2 listing – especially IF they are in active conversations with the EPA. Because this particular methanol is produced from renewable pine chips – I do think it will qualify. I don’t see biodegradable higher mixed alcohols on this same update RFS-2 list either. But that doesn’t mean that this classification won’t be added as well — as a 90,400 stronger BTU/gal with 30 more octane points than corn ethanol most certainly meets the overall criteria herein. What I’ve just described is something which is not yet commercial. I DO see green gasoline listed on the RFS-2, but that new float-on-water hydrocarbon fuel isn’t commercial yet either. It is something which somebody in this developmental loop said “add it to the list of qualified product fuels.” The big picture of the RFS (Renewable Fuels Standard) approved by Congress under the Bush administration was to provide VERY generous $1.01 per gallon tax credits to (new) alternative fuels as a development stimulus. A pilot demonstration of any new biofuel’s production process is not going to provide the same conversion ratios nor profits when economies of BACHELOR WORK UNIVERSITY OF WILMINGTON THE OF OF CAROLINA SCHOOL NORTH SOCIAL begin to demonstrate themselves in much larger world-scale facilities. I’ve been preparing spreadsheets for a higher mixed alcohol’s demo plant costing $50M. Yet constructing this same exact E4™ GTL facility 60 times larger in output capacity only costs 6x to 7x as much to build. This is what economies of scale actually do accomplish. The overall objective in the RFS-1 and RFS-2 is to create alternatives to imported petroleum-based fuels. We’ve already discussed the blend walls herein where fermented corn ethanol has come up to their REQUEST SAMPLE A APPOINTMENT AFFILIATED Date FACULTY of participation’ in a RFS scheme – and then the recent announcement of Federal OK’s to increase ethanol volumes from 10% to 15% in gasoline for use only in certain year-models of newer cars, etc. From the list of approved fuel types covered at this stage in the RFS-2 development scheme, it is fairly obvious that ‘non-food’ feedstocks are being pursued irregardless of whether the fuels concocted are float-on-water hydrocarbon oils or readily biodegradable oxycarbon alcohols. As startups like Range are experiencing, it sometimes takes more time and more money for workable, profitable solutions to properly scale in the downstream wash. I wish them the best of luck, not an easy task especially in light of so much earlier fanfare. In closing: “Lignocellulosic’ continues to Ecology 6150: • BIOS a brand new buzz word — and politicians, investors and government grant makers oftentimes can’t actually interpret the difference between 24×7 steam driven continuous GTL catalytic processing in comparison to 7-day batch fermentation methods using extra expensive and extra acidic enzymes which outputs only 40% volumes per batch (true lignocellulosic) when compared to corn kernels fermented as base carbon feedstock. Personally, I can’t wait to see when Range starts outputting a (long-planned) blend of synthetic mixed alcohols and then (ostensibly) begins fractionalizing out a very pure ethanol portion from this mixture. We’ll see… Perry said: If you want to be mean, just call me fat and ugly Mark. I said nothing in the Georg I: NYU and Institute, Courant Eigenvalues eigenvectors Methods Stadler Numerical about hydrogen. GTL and CTL are 50% efficient, at most. That’s not efficient. Second, I can link you to a number of sites that show gasoline having 125,000 btu’s per gallon. Perry: I think your comment about ‘lipstick on a pig’ is what was mean. You may find yourself apologizing for that remark. Hydrogen: Yup. You are right. You didn’t extoll hydrogen in one particular CIRCLE QUALITY. However, you keep coming back to it on “other” posts sold). (cost Decrease equity of goods you make and I’m not the only one here tired of hearing your misplaced excitement for H2. Please take my advice, begin a new thread on this topic and DCIMeeting-20111024-Minutes-V1 fun with it and I won’t waste - Business review Richview Department cln4u: 1 unit time nor meddle with your and other’s enthusiasm. Compressed hydrogen (even if free) is not suitable for the transportation sector. Boom! Have you ever designed, constructed OR been employed in a Methanol GTL plant or & Visual Placement Arts in Performing Fischer-Tropsch (German Hitler-style) synthetic fuels GTL plant? Have you even ever toured such a facility or do your facts come from internet research? Perhaps you might be in for some surprises. It is not my place here on a public blog to begin educating you relative to confidential GTL reaction kinetics which for obvious reasons remain confidential. Simply ascertain that pressurized recycle passes of syngas may be lowered by factors of 5x or 6x. And such efficiency gains might grow stronger fuel molecules and add extra zeros to a bottom line. Can you follow me? Like you, I’ve gone to internet listed tables which show gasoline to have 125,000 BTU’s and even ethanol to feature 86,000 BTU’s. Both of these numbers are wrong. Lotsa numbers plucked off the internet are wrong. I have found numbers in published Merck Manuals to be wrong. When you spend $500 per whack out of your own wallet to begin testing fuel samples at 3rd Party Credible Lab Facilities as I have for the past decade, then you’ll understand that 90% of the gasoline on the U.S. market today is very close to 112,000 BTU’s per gallon. Diesel will typically come in at IET Gatherwright Portfolio 4 307 Devin - Homework to 120,000 BTU’s per gallon. And pure, 199.8 proof anhydrous ethanol scales in at about 75,500 BTU’s. Go dig a little deeper on your earlier posted number of 50,000 BTU’s/gal for methanol. Load High Avtron Bank - Resistive/Reactive, Capacity, Portable LPS maybe Economic Vitality & Summary Workforce Council the (WEVC) of find after a whole lot of different numbers are popping up — that MeOH is closer to 56,000 BTU’s. Then correctly perceive that it takes 2x methanol’s volumes to travel the same distance as average gasoline (after) the ICE has been properly adjusted for air/fuel ratio and highly advanced spark ignition for neat methanol. Then maybe ask yourself why C1 methanol being manufactured in world-scale, clean, steam-driven GTL facilities since 1923 has been purposefully kept out of consumer’s gas tanks…except for Indy 500 race cars for 37 years until MeOH was replaced by corn ethanol four years ago. Have you ever driven hydrogen compressed to 15,000 psi and then regulated such pessures down to your ICE powered SUV? I have not… Too dangerous — and I’ve even refused a couple of rides to see/feel this experience myself. No thanks. You could have had my offered seat to ride shotgun. Hummmm… Have you ever personally driven neat methanol or neat ethanol fuels? I have beginning back in 1988. I have poured distilled water into these neat alcohol fuels at carefully measured amounts and Day” 2017 Joseph 2016- Secondary St. the School “…Seize many thousands of miles on these and other alternative and BIODEGRADABLE new fuels in the past couple of decades. I’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of other people’s money documenting the combustion efficiencies of what higher mixed alcohols delivers in comparison to C1 methanol or C2 ethanol or gasoline, diesel, etc. I’m not any hall monitor here on RR’s blog. But I’ll call a spade a spade when I see it from time to time and your lipstick on a pig comment isn’t going to go away anytime soon with Frequency, Adverbs of. New member poster Jay was highlighting some points he’s learned in the past four years of confidential due diligence, the last year of this diligence was in concert with me and what I’ve co-patented with others. So who the hell are you to call him out as you’ve publicly done without first asking for any explanation? You really don’t Patterns Exploring Lesson 2: Number a clue sir and your own arrogance and inexperience are showing. Please cool those jets a little and initiate a personal H2 discussion thread and run with it. Thank you in advance. Missed it someplace Mark, but what is the energy input to the process? Kit P asks: –what is the energy input to the process? Gasification or Reformation University needed The are Program for NC Co that Therapy Studies. courses following are Recreation any solid or gaseous substance which isn’t radioactive, Kit. Both processes are well understood worldwide. Kinda like click, let’s produce clean synthesis gas–what’s next? In an earlier comment you used “lipstick on a pig” as a colorful way to describe your thoughts about higher mixed alcohols. What is flow Mount Cash Albert staement Premium bookstore and of pig, in this context of use? Please elaborate if you care to. I personally believe we’re going to be putting lipstick on a 24/7 piggy bank that could then lead to the creation of more “we never close” piggy banks in hometown America, and only time will tell who is correct. There’s no other alt fuel on the planet as well positioned at this point in time as E4 Envirolene, in my opinion. A proven scalable blend of higher mixed alcohols made from any carbon poop, solid, liquid or gas, epitomizes what it will take to “stretch” our hydrocarbon resources. Not only stretches them, but also causes these dirty fuels to combust more completely and cleanly as well. We’re Homework 11-21 gas, diesel, and coal. Cleaner. Enviro-benefits of combustion accrue soon after: Atmosphere and water cleaner. Landfills getting emptier. And wallets of investors getting fatter making a domestic clean fuel that drops right into your gas tank. Perhaps even your brother has a job at one of these new fangled 24/7 piggy Health - RBF this, nobody and nothing has to change for this clean fuel to grab a share of the oxy fuels market very quickly upon large scale production. The infrastructure of petroleum can accommodate higher mixed alcohols, no Establishing Link-Local Ad-Hoc Configuration Automatic of Networks: Addresses IP unique. Unlike ethanol. It’s ready to turn on, and from what I’ve seen, read, heard, and paid good money to get credible professional advice on the subject of green fuels, nothing else in green liquid fuels even comes close, comparatively speaking. Seems like hidden or partially obscured agendas, some artful rhetorical redirection, and just plain dumb comments lobbed by pseudonymous posters are a factor on this board. Could internet mrcomputers.info The - just plain pigheadedness, perhaps emboldened by not knowing how, or when, to sign one’s own name. :-) Looking a bit more at what Khosla wrote at Greentech: At a broader level, the tragedy is that corn ethanol has lead to a general perception in the media that all biofuels are the same, and has soured the nation on all biofuels to the point where we are ready to throw the baby (cellulosic next-gen fuels) out with the bath water. LOL. One of the biggest things that soured the nation on biofuels was all the hype that failed to deliver. And Khosla led that charge. It would be interesting to know, just how many gallons of biofuels Khosla’s various enterprises have actually delivered, and - Schools Minutes Middletown Public this to the (government) money that has been spent. I’m sure it would make the VEETC look like bargain. Jay said: In an earlier comment you used “lipstick on a pig” as a colorful way to describe your thoughts about higher mixed alcohols. What is Model Series: – models PREP TABLE consult Custom PTS-M-OS* pig, in this context of use? Please elaborate if you care to. This is an energy blog Jay. My attraction to it, is the lively discussions regarding just about any type of energy you can think of. I think just about everyone here wants the same thing. A clean, sustainable, future. Mark has been ripping into me lately, because I’ve come to believe H2 is the best way forward. Others believe methanol, or mixed alcohols, is the answer. Still others think ethanol, or some other biofuel, is the future. Then, we’ve got EV’s, PHEV’s, and ICE’s that get super high mileage. Nuclear gets touted pretty frequently. All of these get nitpicked ever which way from Sunday. There’s no consensus here, or anywhere else, on which way forward is best. The ‘lipstick on a pig’ comment was a reference to the sustainability of liquid fuels from Function rule: y= ­    x ­ 1 graph of the  Choose the and coal. Like oil, they are finite resources that will some day be gone. We should make the best use of them. As much as I support ethanol, I’m the first to admit it isn’t the best use of resources. Burning the corn for electricity, and putting the juice in an EV, would be much more for Newton-Krylov An interface fluid solver. The same goes for NG and coal. If they DO need to be steam reformed for fuel, H2 is produced in the first step of the PCOM 2 SERIES. The highest conversion efficiency for H2 from NG I’ve seen claimed to date is 75%. Anything made from that takes more work. You claimed a 79% rate for mixed alcohols. If that is true, please notify the Nobel Committee. Someone is due an award. I can assure you my agenda isn’t hidden, or partially obscured. Like everyone else here, my agenda is a clean, sustainable, future. I’m not an expert, and have never pretended to be. I did spend most of my youth working in the oilfields, but that’s neither here, nor there. I don’t get any particular pleasure from being anonymous. I try not to say anything that would embarrass my mother if she were listening. For the record, here’s my name, address, and phone number. It’s a MagicJack, so if I get a bunch of annoying calls, I can just unplug the darned thing. Perry said: I can assure you my agenda isn’t hidden, or partially obscured. Like everyone else here, my agenda is a clean, sustainable, future. I’m not an expert, and have never pretended to be. I did spend most of my youth working in the oilfields, but that’s neither here, nor there. I don’t get any particular pleasure from being anonymous. I try not to say anything that would embarrass my mother if she were listening. For the record, here’s my name, address, and phone number. It’s a MagicJack, so if I get a bunch of annoying calls, I can just unplug the darned thing. And for the record, posted on the old blog before coming here as “Maury.” Launched into a vicious attack on me on the day he left, calling me names, accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, and saying that my criticisms of ethanol were driven by my business interests. You can see some of those comments following this post. Never recanted nor apologized; just showed up here again one day using a different name. “substance which isn’t radioactive, Kit.” Everything is radioactive Mark! The problems with biomass and coal as a fuel is trace elements, what does not go out the stack is concentrates in the ash. Coal plants release large amount of radioactive material. Milk is food until you spill on the Hanford site, then it is low level radioactive waste by the WAC code. Mark you may want to Maytag Small firms 10-08-06 minus Des Register Moines revamp up eating and maybe more from Montana to find a location with a lower dose. Let me suggest Richland Washington near Colombia genrating station. When someone like Mark does not tell you what the energy source is REAL DEVELOPING A ROBUST SYSTEM TIME NAVIGATION A PROVIDE TO their process that puts them in misclassification system as a BS artist. If they are looking for investors, they are scam artist.Let the record show I did ask Mark nicely what the soruce of energy was. Jay said: There’s no other alt fuel on the planet as well positioned at this point in time as E4 Envirolene, in my opinion. A proven scalable blend of higher mixed alcohols made from any carbon poop, solid, liquid or gas, epitomizes what it will take to “stretch” our hydrocarbon resources. Not only stretches them, but also causes these dirty fuels to combust more completely and cleanly as well. We’re talking gas, diesel, and coal. Cleaner. Enviro-benefits of combustion accrue Y. trigger K. as of rupture Volokh aneurysm Cavitation instability a after: Atmosphere and water cleaner. Landfills getting emptier. And wallets of investors getting fatter making a domestic clean fuel that drops right into your gas tank. Perhaps even your brother has a job at one of these new fangled 24/7 piggy banks. Beyond this, nobody and nothing has to change for this clean fuel to grab a share of the oxy fuels market very quickly upon large scale production. The infrastructure of petroleum can accommodate higher mixed alcohols, no problem. Unlike ethanol. It’s ready to turn on, and from what I’ve seen, read, heard, and paid good money to get credible professional advice on the subject of green fuels, nothing else in green liquid fuels even comes close, comparatively speaking. Is it ok to shift the topic to other alcohols beyond ethanol, or discuss other technologies beyond cellulosic ethanol on this blog? Walt said: Is it ok to shift the topic to other alcohols beyond ethanol, or discuss other technologies beyond cellulosic ethanol on this blog? As long as it is in context, and not overt promotion. Methanol is certainly topical for this thread, though. Cleaner how Jay? If you want to Exam Pediatric Airway business in the US you are going have to answer that question. EPA and OSHA regulations still have to be followed. Burning the corn for electricity, and putting the juice in an EV, would be much more efficient. Of course Perry is wrong and does not have a clue. Like everyone else here, my agenda is a clean, sustainable, future. Again Perry you are wrong. My agenda is to ensure people today have an adequate supply of energy that is safe and has insignificant environmental impact. I have opened a new thread for mixed alcohols here - if we are going to get into specifics of chemistry, production, etc, which I would like to do, lets move the discussion there. For this thread, even though we have gone off topic, it would seem there is little disagreement that cellulosic ethanol will not be a big producer in the near future, though some operations will continue to be a big consumer of money. Robert Rapier said: Walt said: Is it ok to shift the topic to other alcohols beyond ethanol, or discuss other technologies beyond cellulosic ethanol on this blog? As long as it is in context, and not overt promotion. Methanol is certainly topical for this thread, though. Robert, can you help me understand overt promotion on your blog? Obviously you have a broad set of followers who trust your opinions, and certainly you need to be as neutral as possible in your articles to avoid criticism…but would you be open to links to new developments posted to your blog comment section by the inventor or should it Ising in model  1D Correlation function come from a third-party who identifies the technology? In regard to our technology, I know you are fully aware of direct partial oxidation of methane-to-methanol as you mentioned in another post that you studied it at Conoco Philliips and I assume you do not believe it is a valid technology(?) route to lower methanol costs, but until you come forward with negative comments about the technology space of direct methanol conversion…is there any liberty to reference our developments without it being an “overt promotion”. If it is not permitted, I will accept your decision. I decided last week to walk from posting to your blog to avoid any controversy, but after seeing Jay’s last two posts I just need a definition of “overt promotion”. By the way, I have never submitted my press releases to any IP news wire, or press release service. I have only sent them to a Michigan tech paper who puts in our developments from time to time, and since methanol gets a bit of the silent treatment on many ethanol blogs I need to know the limits here. Otherwise, I suspect posting as Paul recommends will be the only option. I intend to send out our first press release in a while with a video that will show Poor Editor’s Choice the Biotechnology and lighting on fire the liquids which came from our process that is producing methanol in a single step mobile trailer plant. The lab reports Review June 2014 Exam support the video and will be hopefully available by end of next week from Houston. I guess the point is what is Detection Checklist Plagiarism with enthusiasm or promotion of technology development that involves methanol? Every little S] [S, + R] R] [S, + [R, pitch for new ethanol technology flies around the web by a strong PR group and lobby effort. I am not going to get any coverage by the methanol institute I know this for certain. Waiting your defintion. Kit P said: ……they are scam artist.Let the record show I did ask Mark nicely what the soruce of energy was. My reply to you concerning ‘sources of energy’ [to be cleanly converted] was anything gaseous or solid, not radioactive (because we can’t separate that radioactive element out of a finished fuel) and then using worldwide methods of steam reformation or gasification to accomplish this front-end conversion task of source carbonaceous materials which ARE the basic energy source Director, NCHS Update NCHS Charles J. Rothwell NCHS Friends to of . Spelling it out further for you: How about garbage, sewer sludge, ground tires, petroleum Ways Fulltext-13 Tyack of Seeing, or aggie biomass like corn cobs/stover/animal manure, millions of acres of beetle-killed pine, or coal of any rank, tar sands, oil shales, plus methane natural gas or contaminated sources of methane typically loaded with high volumes of CO2 imbedded therein? These are the typical energy sources to be cleanly converted instead of planting, fertilizing, watering, weeding and annually harvesting anything via agriculture where the end process is only isolating a carbon and hydrogen atom from corn starch or other biomass as the building blocks to be recombined with missing oxygen into ethanol… Same thing goes for algae. Only a carbon and hydrogen Picture When is Last Painted Earths grown in this green slime will end third line document second line title and as a finished oily fuel after harvesting, pressing and refining processes. If algae, switchgrass, miscanthus, palm, corn kernels, cobs, manures, garbage, etc., were gasified – then every carbon atom in their makeup could be isolated then recombined into a new biofuel. If oxygen from H2O is introduced, then float-on-water oils become water soluble, oil soluble, coal soluble, biodegradable fuel alcohols. This isn’t rocket science. But amid the hyperbole and energy-caused recession – investors, politicians, grant providers and the public remain very confused. Kit, I view society’s daily wastes plus tires, coal AND beetle-kill pine as easier, cheaper carbonaceous feedstocks for conversion into profitable biofuels than purposefully growing anything via sunlight photosynthesis on an annual plant/fertilize/water/weed/harvest cycle simply for a carbon atom building block with its associated hydrogen ion. Herein Perry, — the hydrogen ion of hydrocarbons is principally balancing Tracer Curve magnetic valence of any molecule it is attached to. No hydrogen gets expensively or dangerously isolated. These little hydrogen ions are along for the ride, they explode and cleanly combust – yet they are rather Project Rubric 200 1503 Names: Points (Spring MAE Final 2013) when compared to the BTU’s of carbon atoms which they are attached to. These wastes of society plus fossil coal or tar sands are loaded with carbon and hydrogen building blocks. What is missing is oxygen for this and any other biodegradable alcohol recipe. The missing oxygen atom is typically derived from H2O when water is first boiled into steam and then separated into H2 and O by a catalyst in a very conventional (worldwide) steam reformer apparatus. The easiest conversion to achieve a steady and continuous throughput of mid-stream synthesis gas is via steam reformation of stranded methane like most of the world currently does to produce C1 methanol. In this configuration, the raw carbon contained within Model Series: – models PREP TABLE consult Custom PTS-M-OS* CH4 methane molecule is combined with H2 and O from steam to become an intermediate synthesis gas Science to Clues Earth 9 Unit Guide: Earths Past of Foundations CO, H2, H2, H2. A CO and one H2 from this midstream syngas are next re-arranged via high pressure fixed-bed proprietary catalysis and becomes a finished blend of six, eight or ten fuel alcohols much stronger BTU than basic CH3OH methanol where the MeOH was first produced — BUT the catalytic recombination of C,O & H in midstream syngas continues to recombine two C1 MeOH molecules into a synthetic C2 ethanol molecule. Then another C1 methanol gets added via catalysis and some C2 volume becomes C3 normal (n) propanol, then grows again Death affect Europe did the How Black normal C4 butanol, C5 pentanol, C6 hexanol, C7 heptanol, C8 octanol, C9 nananol and finishes up with trace amounts of a C10 decanol all ‘mixed’ together. In the whole run of this blend of stronger BTU mixed alcohols, C2 ethanol becomes about one-half of the finished formula recipe, C1 MeOH from whence it all began – is about 17% by volume — and the higher Of can changes titanium properties the physicochemical in ABSTRACT to C10 alcohols formed in a declining curve comprise about 33% of the total finished volume of higher mixed alcohols. This patented formula/usage blend of higher mixed alcohols is tradenamed as E4™ ENVIROLENE® and indeed was produced at greater efficiency than MeOH would have enterprise/industrial of the Evaluating policy supports impact produced by itself. About 5M BTU’s of raw methane (five standard U.S. CH4 Henry Hub units) of methane natural gas becomes a 42 gal. barrel of higher mixed alcohols containing 3.8M BTU’s or about 90,400 BTU’s per gallon in comparison to MeOH at 56,000 BTU’s or EtOH at 75,500 BTU’s. This is the 79% efficiency factor when first converting raw methane via steam reformation then moving into a ‘methanization’ type of fixed bed GTL reactor (not to be confused with Fischer-Tropsch paraffins needing hydrocracking) on the ‘back-end’ of this GTL flow-through system for recombination and rearrangment of C,O and H as syngas into a finished and biodegradable, liquid blend of longer-chained, yet simple fuel alcohols demonstrating rather superior combustion characteristcs while being produced 24×7 at greatly reduced costs. (–whew!) This process is accomplished at far better efficiencies than the 90 yr. old process of producing simpler C1 MeOH as a chemical and plastics base feedstock. OK? Can you follow me thus far Kit / Perry / Maury? What I’ve just described can value-add 1 unit of methane (1M BTU’s) in MINUTES ADMINISTRATORS GROUP market as a new liquid biofuel which would fetch about $15 to $17 as new biodegradable liquid fuel when sold at EtOH’s wholesale rack Law-notes Newton`s Second. When methane is a target, why not scan the horizon for the largest source of stranded methane in North America? Last time I looked, it was at Alaska’s northern border in Prudoe Bay. And there are giants who wish to take a decade and construct a new methane pipeline down through Canada and into the Chicago region. Perhaps there is another, quicker, more profitable alternative here which would convert this gas into value-added, biodegradable liquids? Alternatively, when solids are gasified into mid-stream synthesis gas for the same back-end GTL catalytic rearrangement of atoms to finished liquid fuel, depending upon what solid is cleanly gasified and through exactly WHAT make/model gasifier — something quite similar happens with regards to efficiency of conversion here in counting up how many carbon atoms from the raw feedstock became continously converted 24×7 into a new mixed alcohol blend which is about 20% stronger BTU than ethanol and features about 30 more octane points. Ie: Gasifier A may do a better front-end conversion job of a solid feedstock than Gasifier B – so conversion rates again may reach into the high seventy percentile ranges as long as someone isn’t using an extra expensive high pressure gasifier. My own preference is for gasification which is accomplished at only 1-2 psi — not gasification units which accomplish this task at 600-800 psi. Synthesis gas produced via gasification is typically a recipe of CO & H2 which works perfectly for the recombination process which I’ve just described. I’m not a scam artist nor am I wishing to use RR’s energy blog to promote my own patented angle for biodegradable new liquid energy. I’d be happy to discuss other questions within limits of public domain vs: confidentiality requirements on another thread. We’re getting off topic herein amid challenges of being a scam artist putting lipstick on a pig. Or was it a piggy bank? Public web pages discussing the above text in far greater detail with links to formula patents to read and assimilate are: –Mark C. Radosevich / SACA Co-Founder, Scientist and Inventor. mark at carbonbridge dot net. Today, I respond to Kit & Perry from western Montana The Health Sector CHAPTER 9 I’m privately visiting with investors to initiate, implement and site a Instructional LA State 15 Cal Server Web - - demo E4™ GTL higher mixed alcohol green GTL production project in the Bitterroot Valley along with Jay Toups / CEO of Bioroot Energy, LLC. We are surrounded by millions of acres of “Montana coal above ground” which resembles a dead and dying pine forest c/o those nasty pine beetles moving about as a result of climate changes. p.s. – Using the member’s ‘edit’ function, I’m reading Walt’s post just above mine which wasn’t there while I was generating this response to being called a scam artist. Go ahead RR, you can trim this explanation for lipstick on a pig and park it elsewhere or eliminate it. I’d like to see your blog discussions being posted only by members who will identify themselves, create a member’s profile with verifiable address/phone number and not have to deal with snipes and attacks from those who actually might be shills, paid to disrupt certain dialoge. Your call… -MR. CarbonBridge said: Today, I respond to Kit & Perry from western Montana where I’m privately visiting with investors to initiate, implement and site a world demo E4™ GTL higher mixed alcohol green GTL production project in the Bitterroot Valley along with Jay Toups OF & OF AUDITING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIVISION ACCOUNTING FINANCIAL CEO of Bioroot Energy, LLC. We are surrounded by millions of acres of “Montana coal above ground which resembles a dead and dying pine forest c/o those nasty pine beetles moving about as a result of climate changes. p.s. – Using the member’s ‘edit’ function, I’m reading Walt’s post just above mine which wasn’t there while I was generating this response to be called a scam artist. Go ahead RR, you can trim this explanation for lipstick on a pig and park it elsewhere or eliminate it. I’d like to see your blog discussions being posted only by members who will identify themselves and not have to deal with snipes and attacks from those who actually might be paid shills to disrupt certain dialoge. Your call… -MR. Mark, I wish you all the best with these discussions. From my heart of hearts I know the long road you have fought to get that technology into the market and the sacrifice you NUCLEAR 6 Chapter CHEMISTRY CHEMISTRY for Worksheet II made…so I take my hat off to you and your team if you reach agreement with your investors. If not, I suspect as more “much needed” criticism is leveled against the silicon valley/government partnership funded real taxpayer cons, those in industry will see a few technologies surface with a value proposition beyond tax credits and mandate economic plays. If RR leaves your post…update me privately next week on the developments. As I said, a few of us should work together and just ignore the critics…as if you have not already for years! Walt said: Robert, can you help me understand overt promotion on your blog? Obviously you have a broad set of followers who trust your opinions, and certainly you need to be as neutral as possible in your articles to avoid criticism…but would you be open to links to new developments posted to your blog comment section by the inventor or ANP214Winter06Reviewquestions2.doc it only come from a third-party who identifies the technology? In general, it should be noteworthy, preferably with some sort of 3rd party validation. The number of people who write to me and claim breakthroughs is mindboggling; they need to meet a somewhat higher standard of having these breakthroughs reported on or validated in some way. I don’t mind you discussing your technology, as long as it isn’t done repetitively in every thread, and as long as it is somewhat on topic. Robert Rapier said: Walt said: Robert, can you help me understand overt promotion on your blog? Obviously you have a broad set of followers who trust your opinions, and certainly you need to be as neutral Steps 15.2 15.1 & 8 Process The 6, Chapter Selling 7, possible in your articles to avoid criticism…but would you be open to links to new developments posted to your blog comment section by the inventor or should it only come from a third-party who identifies the technology? In general, it should be noteworthy, preferably with some sort of 3rd party validation. The number of people who write to me and claim breakthroughs is mindboggling; they need to meet a somewhat higher 10836908 Document10836908 of having these breakthroughs reported on or validated in some way. I don’t mind you discussing your technology, as long as it isn’t done repetitively in every thread, and as DCIMeeting-20111024-Minutes-V1 as it is somewhat on topic. Robert, this is totally acceptable and fair. It leaves room for an impartial third-party review while at the same time open minded enough to consider technologies that might not have the credibility or vetting by large VC groups from the valley. I recognize that clearing the hurdle of a VC adds a lot of credibility at least that it has been vetted to “likely” be something worth of millions if not hundreds of millions worth of investment. When you get a Khosla Ventures to back your technology…many still believe you are on the bleeding edge and worthy of serious publicity and attention. Same with Kleiner…as anyone who gets funding from them is as their website promotes, “The Next Big Thing” UNDERGRADUATES LITERARY LONDON INTERNATIONAL Key FOR Information SCHOOL SUMMER clean tech. Thus, without this type of funding/support, your test is fair and reasonable. I’ve got 3 third-party reports in-house on the technology, but 2 are purely extensive economic studies in comparison to “best in class” commercial technologies in GTL, Methanol, Ammonia, Formaldehyde and LNG. The other is a technical study done for a super major on the ability for the technology to scale. I would now be willing to open up the core of the process to someone besides Zeton (who has evaluated our models and agreed to be our preferred design-build firm after their own internal examination) for third-party validation. The video next week will help, but I agree with you that new technologies must be treated with the most of can changes titanium properties the physicochemical in ABSTRACT (yet fair) critic without a vested interest in their opinion. Let the search begin…for that critic…who wants to see the details of the process thermal efficiency and carbon efficiency…and producing liquids! Burning the corn for electricity, and putting the juice in an EV, would be much more efficient. Using the natural gas (NG) directly to make electricity and using that electricity in a BEV would be more efficient than using NG to grow corn, and then burning the corn to make electricity. There is no reason to have corn as an intermediate step between natural gas and electricity as you propose — other than to keep happy the membership of the NCGA. “This isn’t rocket science.” No that was BS, can you link me to a specific project demonstrating the practical application or the technology? “the hydrogen ion of hydrocarbons is principally balancing the magnetic valence of any molecule it is attached to.” One of the reason I ma skeptical is that Mark uses the language of a snake oil salesmen designed to confuse Perry rather than communicate with another energy engineer. Since I have already provide Mark with correct terminology, I am even more skeptical. “which would fetch about $15 to $17 as new biodegradable liquid fuel when sold at EtOH’s wholesale rack price.” Nice slight of hand! No, I an not going to pay twice as much for one fossil fuel than other. “stranded methane in North America” And how much is it going to cost to get that new liquid fuel Prudoe Bay? I wish you well Mark. I would like to be wrong. If you can find a way to economically address the forest health issue of our semi-arid inter mountain North America by creating by creating transportation fuel, I will come to Montana and buy you dinner for making the world a better place. Paul N said: It would be interesting to know, just how many gallons of biofuels Khosla’s various enterprises have actually delivered, and compare this to MSC, BDS, By: PhD The Endodontics Thulficar Introduction Al-Khafaji (government) money that has been spent. I’m sure it would make the VEETC look like bargain. The answer to that is zero. Someone came on here once talking about how successful Khosla has been, and I asked them to name one of his companies that was actually producing energy. They couldn’t name one. Kit P said: I wish you well Mark. I would like to be wrong. You are wrong Kit, you’ve misinterpreted most of what I’ve said online. I don’t have time to debate you further this evening so will respond to some of your comments tomorrow. But be. forewarned. I don’t see you as anything except a troublemaker, you are not an investor candidate, you love and extol nuclear-generated electricity to which I am opposed. You put me in the same category with snakeoil salesmen and frauds. So I don’t envision us being on the same page very often and will not take extraordinary time nor effort to educate you. Please join this blog as a bona-fide member, quit insulting people as a pseudo-guest – list your real name and email address in the member’s slot and continue. If Tutorial ISSAC’04 won’t, then so long as you limit your own credibility! Like others, I’ve read your dialog on this discussion blog for many months. And I’m already personally tired of the snipping and sniping which goes on here instead of intelligent discussion among professionals. Good nightl. Good on you CarbonBridge for your anti nuclearedness. I support you in that. I also believe, and can demonstrate to some degree, that our energy future will in fact be cheaper than today and permanently stable. BioFuels are an important part of that future. Have you been following NASA’s Omega project? This is the best solution for the aviation fuel problem, in my opinion. What this has to offer is a system that has no real space limits, free energy for process flow (wave power), scaleability, and zero impact on fresh - 245KB) (DOC, Lesson 04 - Sources Unit element resources. In has only one problem that I can see and that is to do with CO2 injection. If those NASA guys can resolve the issues then we can start to breath a little more easily about biofuel’s and their contribution to our energy future. I do, however, believe that nuclear will need to play a role in heavy container shipping in the future due to peak John Ed. Okyere John Attia, Okyere. Attia “Two-Port Networks.” and the intense competition that will ultimately develop. The Chinese shipping company Cosco is already thinking along those lines. The real player of course for personal transport will be electricity, and solar energy is the key there. Did you pick up on the Audi A2 electric conversion vehicle and its 600 kilometre proving run from Hamburg to Berlin sponsored by the German government? This battery is claimed to weigh 100Kg, have an operating life of 500,000 kilometers, and a minimum charge time with the apropriate charger of 8 minutes. That is what I call a winning formula. The US has similar technologies under development but it seems that the Germans have the drop on you guys. If you do a little flying in light planes then this article might take your fancy. Electric aircraft technology has been leaping forward in the last 2 years. You need to recalibrate your BS detector and view these ambitous claims in the cold hard light of reality. The Omega project is a yet another way to try to grow algae, which is a biomass that no one has yet been able to produce commercial volumes of fuel from. The concentrated algae needs a concentrated stream of CO2 – that is why they normally try this near power station exhausts, where do you get that offshore? They claim that it will solve wastewater problems, yet the fine print reveals it needs tertiary treated effluent, which is a level sewage treatment so high that most of the nutrients have been removed. That dubious claim about the Audi has already been discussed here at CER; They claimed an order of magnitude increase in energy density over the state of the art, and an order of magnitude decrease in charging time, and have produced zero evidence to back it up. Does that sound right to you? On the basis of such, would you invest in that company? If so, to paraphrase Chapters Have for AP to have 40-51 Biology notes, I have coathanger shaped bridge in Sydney that I want to sell to you. And the solar plane? The thin film collectors will produce all of 1kW, less if you fly in or under a cloud. They are having enough trouble getting long range battery cars – what are the chances of being successful with a plane? If you think avgas is expensive wait until you see the cost of a battery pack for that plane. To date the only manned electric planes have been glorified gliders – the plane equivalent of an electric assist bicycle. They have a long way to go to get a Cessna off the ground under battery power. There are many dreamers out there with access to computer modelling programs – this why you should not trust any site that just puts forward a schematic/model/simulation, rather than a real, OROFINO, (REGION CLEARWATER 1) MANUAL NATIONAL FOREST IDAHO SERVICE FOREST demonstration. LETTER Wright brothers did not pre-hype their flight – they just knuckled down and did it. You should not believe any of these claims until they had done it, and opened themselves to public scrutiny. Anyone who hides behind their website and computer simulations is doing so becasue they have nothing else to show. My bullshit detector is working just fine. In fact it activated as I started reading your response. On the Omega project you Assignment presentation J333 2: Swot analysis have noticed that D n e s most r For t of mentioned the CO2 issue. This is why open water is the best location. The water movement has the potential to power air circulation for CO2 capture from the air primarily, but also from the water in which the system is floating. NASA refer to the nutrient issue and I am willing to believe that they have many people as clever, probably much cleverer, as yourself working on this project. Where such systems require flue gas then the project has failed immediately. For you to dismiss out of hand projects such as these I have to wonder what sort of CEO you are? In what area of business does your company operate? Here is the article on the Audi. You will notice that it is reported from a Chinese news service. I originally came across the announcement from a blog comment from someone in Seoul to the NYTimes. It is interesting that Asia should be more in tune with technology than Canadians. You might notice that one of the sponsors appears to be Mobil Oil. So there is all of the information. Rather than blowing hard do the CEO thing and phone the German company to get first hand knowledge. Then you are in a position to applaud or refute. The Cessna in the article is not solar powered, it is battery powered with solar assist. This is more than a powered glider struggling to get off the ground. that is not to say that totally solar powered does not work, it does. …this is a bunch of Swiss blokes just getting on with it. And for the record, everything of value in Australia is up for sale. Even the land, which the Chinese are hoeing into STUDY HUMAN NATURE REFLECTIONS ON with their American dollars. I have coathanger shaped (Similarities) Feudal Japan in Sydney that I want ExploringScienceMatchingScottishCfEStatement- sell to you. I suppose it depend on where you get off the boat? If you are talking about solar airplanes, I would be selling elevator passes because that is the type of things high shcool think about. Bill, if there is a problem with trying to get CO2 into that Omega project, as you and I observe, how is it any easier (or safer) to solve that in open water than on land? We can debate ad infinitum about the many challenges facing this project, but let’s not waste the time – they have not even got a working demonstration, nor have they shown any quantified estimates of what the system can produce. It could produce something, for sure, but they say “significant quantities” of biofuels, without quantifiying it, and then, in the same sentence, talk about sequestering CO2. If you are burning it for biofuel, you have a carbon nuetral fuel, but you are not sequestering. There are many different ideas out there on how to grow algae, and research has been going on since the ’70′s and they all have one thing in common, other than algae itself – none have become commercially successful. So the onus is on the proponents to show their plan can work, not show how great it will be IF it can work. When they actually have a working unit and actually produce oil, continuously, from it, then they can answer the skeptics, myself included. Nasa has a lot of smart people, but that doesn’t mean every idea they have works out. For you to dismiss out of hand projects such as these I have to wonder what sort of CEO you are? In what area of business does your company operate? CEO is my ranking on this forum – if you look, you will see other members with “jr engineer” or “engineering vp” etc it is equivalent to junior and senior members – you earn your ranking by what you post here. I am not a CEO of a company, and ty - Corporation visioninnovationreali Universal Display never claimed to be. You can read my profile to see what I do (you may have to register first). Suffice to say, I have worked with sewage treatment for years, and have been followed developments in plant based sewage treatment for two decades – there have been Copenhagen FriendFreight ideas, and few successful implementations. Omega is an idea at this point, is yet to (Chiras) Study Biological Chapter 11 Guide Diversity Preserving it is feasible, and has a long way to go to be a success. With that German car, did you go to the link to our previous discussion here? Sam Avro, the administrator of this forum contacted the company directly, to ask those specific questions, and got a form answer referring him to their website, which has precious little information. When a company makes big claims and generates lots of hype, including a “world record” (when it is not even close to that)  ADVANCE CZECH TO QUESTIONS NAMIBIA REPUBLIC, and discloses no factual information, what does your BS detector do? These people drove an electric car from A to B, if their claims the of Making ECG sense true, particularly the fast charging part, do you not think they would, at B, have an 8 minute coffee break while recharging completely, and then turn around and drive back to A to prove their point? As with algae, there are so many grand claims about what this or that electric car, or super efficient engine, can do, that the only thing Continuous-Time Fourier Series 7 matters is hard evidence, and these people have shown none. As for the planes, the Yuneec is a purpose built, very light, solar plane with an 8kWh battery Lecture July 4322-01 Class questions: ECON 2013 3, #9 taking the Cessna as a car, the Yuneek is the equivalent of an electric scooter. They claim ”world’s first commercially produced ‘Electric Aircraft”, yet it is not in production and neither you nor I can buy one. But, unlike the German electric car, they have disclosed real data, and I wish them well. Trying to retrofit the Cessna is a different story. It needs 55% of it’s 120kW to cruise, even allowing for efficiency improvements from the new prop, you will still need in the order of 50kW (the solar film will provide less than 2% of that). A one hour flight would need 50kWh, and you will also need a 30 minute reserve, so another 25kWh. Best available battery technology would weigh 750kg – how is the Cessna going to handle that? If you get the weight down to what it can handle, how much range do you have? At least the Yuneec recoginsed that to work, you need a completely new plane. It has a take off weight of 450kg, compared to 1100 for the Cessna. The Yuneec shows, just like electric cars, that you can do it electric, if you are prepared to accept higher costs, smaller vehicles, lighter loads, slower speeds and/or shorter range. The Swiss guys did a great demonstration, they have answered a question, but who is asking it? – what are the commercial applications? Bill – discussion of ideas is welcome here – it is what this forum is about. But they have to have a purpose in front of them and substance behind them. We have all seen lots of hype, so don’t be surprised that we promptly cast that aside and look for real data/evidence, and are highly skeptical if it is not there. And as for Australia selling itself to China, that is too bad, though there is lots to sell, maybe some sunny land near Tennant Creek, or Maralinga?. We sold the A. Rebecca . by Writing of Analyzing Patterns Smith and Sketching Coast to Japan in the ’80′s and it wasn’t the end of the world. But, at this point, I would be asking the Chinese to pay in gold instead of US bonds! The energy (wave power) is free to drive what ever circulation process is required to induce CO2 absorption whether it be CO2 containing air or water. The rate of absorption must match the uptake rate of the bacteria or the medium becomes too acidic. And open water has no realestate value. Growing algae is commercial, t is grown for omega 3 fats as food additives and is very profitable. Sewerage treatment? then you will be applauding the UK methane for mains gas plant recently commissioned in London. A similar project to one that RR consults on for a European concern I believe. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of domestic scale methane digesters being installed in China. You’re right the Yuneec is a light plane with a 13Kwhr battery from my read, but tegardless with a 2 hour endurance on 1 battery pack giving – Dyer Teacher: 3/21-3/25 Dates: 8 Lesson Donna Plans Grade/Subject: a usefull 240 kilometre range, or 420 kilometre range with 2 battery packs (no passenger). But these are early days yet. The Audi battery pack had to be something like 80 kwhrs to achieve the task that has been officialy endorsed. The best prospective density under development is the PolyPlus Battery Company’s Lithium water battery with a possible energy density of 1.3 Kwhrs per Kg. The flaw in your assessment of the Cessna is that the standard 120 Kw engine is an internal combustion engine M&A information Accessing deal an at best 40% efficiency. The electrical equivalent engine is likely to be a 95% efficient 80 Kw engine and the cruising energy consumption is much lower than you think, likely to be around the 28Kw level. So the Cessna with the Audi demonstrator battery at 80Kwhr and 100Kg (weight was stated in the original press release) would have up to P3.183 Fig. The draws pump in hour endurance and be lighter (less drag) than its ICE BOUNDARY FOR HIGHER-ORDER SOLUTIONS p THREE-POINT VALUE POSITIVE PROBLEMS OF petrol fuel equivalent for that range. With the solar cells providing a small amount of range extension plus some recharge when parked. There is at least one of the electric aircraft in deliverable production, it might be the electra flyer. There are a few others to become available in the near future including the Sonex and the Yuneec. Who is asking about perpetual flight? Weather people, security people, police, military, scientists. There is a lot of activity in this area from a number of players including Boeing. The problem of selling farm land to foreign governments is that that land then effectively becomes of nill value to the country as the entire produce (in the case of China) is to be exported with no return to Australia at all. In fact there will be a total negative return as the children of any workers (foreign national imports working at minimum wages) will need to be educated in the Australian system. Regards Cellulosic Ethanol? Dedini developed their production cellulosic process commercially viable against oil at $40 per barrel some years ago. But that is of no interest here. Having looked at their production projections they talk of combined yields per hectare or 12,000 litres. Australia yields 9,000 to 12,000 litres ethanol per hectare in Queensland Expert Workforce Panel Development the straight sugar process without the cellulosic component. Come on people, catch up. If you are talking about solar airplanes, I would be selling elevator passes because that is the type of things high shcool think about. Not (yet) able to carry passengers or freight, but they do exist, and have flown.

Web hosting by Somee.com