Bio-fuels

[Palimino]

Bio-diesel is the answer to the employment problem and Escom twattiness. Hopefully, some independent power producer will consider this on the route to obscene wealth. Stacks of rural (unskilled) employment because the farming need not be commercial – standards don’t apply (except for food). The plants (high-yield, purpose directed plants - not food plants) are suitable for small-scale farming on crappy land with no quality control. Just plant them and harvest them in time for pick-up. The rest of the time bak balles, beat your wife and get drunk. In other words follow a traditional lifestyle.

Picture it. A railway spur (implying a working rail network) is laid-down at major nodes. A bio-diesel locomotive sponsored by SASOL (your friendly alternative fuel giant – building a better nation <gag>) leaves trucks on the spur for about a week (a residential carriage as well for officials) to collect fuel plant matter from myriads of subsistence farmers. They also tow around trailers with bio-diesel powered tractors to collect the harvest of farmers who cannot get to the rail node. Payment is by cheque - no carrying of cash so that they or the farmers become targets for criminal attack. Cheque validation is by the farmer’s thumbprint (illiteracy is addressed). The banks in nearby centres have the biometric apparatus necessary to cash cheques and have been instructed to treat a severed thumb, dripping blood with deep suspicion. The banking industry also wins – all these farmers have bank accounts. Genetically engineered fuel crops (Monsanto?) should be looked into for greater yields.

With the bio-diesel option, all the existing power stations can be used with little or no modification (they are just boilers, you burn different stuff is all). As the vegetable matter for bio-diesel is low tech. agriculture, it will provide masses of employment. The bio-diesel growing plants are robust (so neglect is not a big issue) and do not require the same standards as foodstuff. Insecticides, gro-fast muti etc. are OK. No refrigeration or time-critical transport required. Just harvest the stuff (in your own time) and get it to the fuel-making centres at some stage – the sooner to be paid. Genetically engineered crops should also be considered. If the fuel crop is alien to SA, there will be little danger of influencing ‘organic’ crops. There is also a massive infrastructure devoted to the internal combustion engine (cars). Little modification with bio-fuels is required. What modification that is required is cheap. There will not be a rush to buy expensive ‘green’ vehicles that require a non-existent infrastructure (wishful thinking). No money.

There is a school that thinks nuclear power is a viable option. Nuclear power for SA would be a horrendous mistake. Forget about the lead times and expense of nuclear power stations, we don’t have the skills here and the penalties for an AA ‘miscalculation’ are huge.

Nuclear = bad move after Japan which was a practical demonstration of nuclear dangers in a 1st world country, let alone a wannabe like SA.

 

[Valis]

...after Japan which was a practical demonstration of nuclear safety

TIFI

Fear of nuclear power is out of all proportion to the actual risks

I agree with you on the bio-fuels though. Just keep Monsanto away! Believe me, you don't want to get them involved.

They should really be growing hemp for making bio-diesel. It has the highest energy density per mass, it grows anywhere, uses very little water (important in arid SA), it replenishes the soil etc. etc. Hemp is the only way to go

 

[Palimino]

TIFI

Fear of nuclear power is out of all proportion to the actual risks

Damage control mode by the pro-nuclear lobby.

Just keep Monsanto away! Believe me, you don't want to get them involved.

I’m not pushing Monsanto. Just highlighting that, as it’s not foodstuff, genetic modification is not really an issue.

They should really be growing hemp for making bio-diesel. It has the highest energy density per mass, it grows anywhere, uses very little water (important in arid SA), it replenishes the soil etc. etc. Hemp is the only way to go.

Can’t argue with you there.

 

[Valis]

Damage control mode by the pro-nuclear lobby.

Did you even bother to read the article before dismissing it out of hand?

Dr Melanie Windridge is a freelance science communicator and academic visitor in nuclear fusion research at Imperial College London

Please explain to me how this has anything to do with the nuclear lobby? You're just having a knee-jerk reaction here, try using your brains for a change.

 

[Palimino]

Did you even bother to read the article before dismissing it out of hand?

No, I was going by the title.

‘Nuclear fusion’ has to do with the nuclear lobby. Try pulling your head out your ass for a change.

 

[noxibox]

As long as you can keep food farmers out of it. It becomes a big problem when production that should be destined to be food is diverted.

The disaster in Japan has demonstrated how safe nuclear is. I do think though that poor countries should be using whatever means of power generation is the cheapest. If that is some dirty method the rich countries eschew, then so be it.

 

[Sherbang]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html

The Amazon was the chic eco-cause of the 1990s, revered as an incomparable storehouse of biodiversity. It's been overshadowed lately by global warming, but the Amazon rain forest happens also to be an incomparable storehouse of carbon, the very carbon that heats up the planet when it's released into the atmosphere. Brazil now ranks fourth in the world in carbon emissions, and most of its emissions come from deforestation. Carter is not a man who gets easily spooked--he led a reconnaissance unit in Desert Storm, and I watched him grab a small anaconda with his bare hands in Brazil--but he can sound downright panicky about the future of the forest. "You can't protect it. There's too much money to be made tearing it down," he says. "Out here on the frontier, you really see the market at work."
This land rush is being accelerated by an unlikely source: biofuels. An explosion in demand for farm-grown fuels has raised global crop prices to record highs, which is spurring a dramatic expansion of Brazilian agriculture, which is invading the Amazon at an increasingly alarming rate.

http://www.bdpedia.com/biodiesel/alt/alt.html

Some of the disadvantages of and problems with biodiesel are:
· It is currently more expensive (see also: Biodiesel – Performance, Costs & Use – from the Dept of Energy, Govt of USA)
· Disadvantages of using biodiesel produced from agricultural crops involve additional land use, as land area is taken up and various agricultural inputs with their environmental effects are inevitable. Switching to biodiesel on a large scale requires considerable use of our arable area. Even modest usages of biodiesel would consume almost all cropland in some countries in Europe! If the same thing is to happen all over the world, the impact on global food supply could be a major concern, and could make some countries being net importers of food products, from their current status of net exporters! It Could so happen that most lands on the planet are deployed to produce food for cars, not people! ( see also: Biodiesel & Deforestation, Amount of Biodiesel That Could be Produced from Available Land in the UK – An Estimate)\
· It gives out more nitrogen oxide emissions (Nitrogen oxide emissions from biodiesel blends could possibly be reduced by blending with kerosene or Fischer-Tropsch diesel) (NOx & Biodiesel – Journey to Forever, Study Shows NOx Emissions Reduction in Biodiesel with Additives – PDF)
· Transportation & storage of biodiesel require special management. Some properties of biodiesel make it undesirable for use at high concentrations. For example, pure biodiesel doesn't flow well at low temperatures, which can cause problems for customers with outdoor storage tanks in colder climates. A related disadvantage is that biodiesel, because of its nature, can’t be transported in pipelines. It has to be transported by truck or rail, which increases the cost.
· Biodiesel is less suitable for use in low temperatures, than petrodiesel. The “cloud point” is the temperature at which a sample of the fuel starts to appear cloudy, indicating that wax crystals have begun to form. At even lower temperatures, the fuel becomes a gel that cannot be pumped. The “pour point” is the temperature below which the fuel will not flow. As the cloud and pour points for biodiesel are higher than those for petroleum diesel, the performance of biodiesel in cold conditions is markedly worse than that of petroleum diesel. At low temperatures, diesel fuel forms wax crystals, which can clog fuel lines and filters in a vehicle’s fuel system. Vehicles running on biodiesel blends may therefore exhibit more drivability problems at less severe winter temperatures than do vehicles running on petroleum diesel.
...

 

[Palimino]

As long as you can keep food farmers out of it. It becomes a big problem when production that should be destined to be food is diverted.

The ‘food’ crop issue is used to demonise biofuels. There is little risk of this as ‘food’ crops don’t make particularly good biofuel crops (low yield). The surplus food crops were previously used for ethanol. This gave rise to the ‘food crops being used for biofuel’ hysteria.

The disaster in Japan has demonstrated how safe nuclear is.

Not quite. You are assuming that other cultures are as stoic as Japanese culture and their emergency services and build quality are the same. I very much doubt this. Nuclear fission power is unsafe and long-term dirty.

 

[Sherbang]

The ‘food’ crop issue is used to demonise biofuels. There is little risk of this as ‘food’ crops don’t make particularly good biofuel crops (low yield). The surplus food crops were previously used for ethanol. This gave rise to the ‘food crops being used for biofuel’ hysteria.

It's not the type of crop that is the problem, it's the land use.

Switching to biodiesel on a large scale requires considerable use of our arable area. Even modest usages of biodiesel would consume almost all cropland in some countries in Europe! If the same thing is to happen all over the world, the impact on global food supply could be a major concern, and could make some countries being net importers of food products, from their current status of net exporters! It could so happen that most lands on the planet are deployed to produce food for cars, not people!

 

[Palimino]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html



http://www.bdpedia.com/biodiesel/alt/alt.html

<snip>...Disadvantages of using biodiesel produced from agricultural crops involve additional land use, as land area is taken up and various agricultural inputs with their environmental effects are inevitable. Switching to biodiesel on a large scale requires considerable use of our arable area. Even modest usages of biodiesel would consume almost all cropland in some countries in Europe! If the same thing is to happen all over the world, the impact on global food supply could be a major concern, and could make some countries being net importers of food products, from their current status of net exporters! It Could so happen that most lands on the planet are deployed to produce food for cars, not people! ( see also: Biodiesel & Deforestation, Amount of Biodiesel That Could be Produced from Available Land in the UK – An Estimate)\

The biofuel subsistence farming was to supply employment to a huge, unskilled population. Land would be an issue. SA is an arid country and water would be an issue as well. The bulk of biofuel would be derived from seawater algae. Biofuel can be derived from algae. There is plenty of salt water – areas of the sea can be ‘fenced’ with those booms used to contain oil slicks (a positive contribution of oil pollution). The tons of algae can be harvested for fuel. This is in addition to other alternative sources. Chicken poop (usually free) provides the phosphate component on which algae thrives. The extent of the algal area requires a strategy for distributing the phosphate-rich chicken poop. I suggest micro-light aircraft fitted with ‘mini-ag’ systems (similar to a crop duster plane) and rigged with floats – like a sea plane. The plane flies over the algal area ‘spraying’ the feedstuff. Flying a micro-light aircraft for this purpose is not difficult – about a weeks training (I have flown them for years).

The Southern Ocean (our East coast) is not for wussies and can be very turbulent – not conducive to growing algae. The nooks and crannies in our coastline (unsuitable for harbours) would make ideal sheltered growing areas. More areas could be evacuated, if necessary. They don’t have to be deep (about 1 metre). A bonus - the oxygen-starved ‘dead zone’ caused by carpets of algae along coast lines will also form a natural shark barrier. No more shark nets. ‘Down-the-line’ problems will undoubtedly occur, but combined with existing knowledge, they should be solvable. Any ‘problems’ which occur will be related to the extent of the algae cultivation area – everything else is low-risk and known (not to discount the odd curve ball). It’s not as if we [humanity] had a choice. Current speculation favours the virtual extinction of humanity after a horrible period of famine and drought. The algae solution can be implemented fairly quickly and speed is essential. The only sufferers are those heavily invested in fossil fuels.

The rest of your quote can be addressed by additives, blends, etc. It sounds like demonising rhetoric anyway. The only valid point (IMO) was the land and fresh water issue.

 

[Sherbang]

The biofuel subsistence farming was to supply employment to a huge, unskilled population. Land would be an issue. SA is an arid country and water would be an issue as well. The bulk of biofuel would be derived from seawater algae. Biofuel can be derived from algae. There is plenty of salt water – areas of the sea can be ‘fenced’ with those booms used to contain oil slicks (a positive contribution of oil pollution). The tons of algae can be harvested for fuel. This is in addition to other alternative sources. Chicken poop (usually free) provides the phosphate component on which algae thrives. The extent of the algal area requires a strategy for distributing the phosphate-rich chicken poop. I suggest micro-light aircraft fitted with ‘mini-ag’ systems (similar to a crop duster plane) and rigged with floats – like a sea plane. The plane flies over the algal area ‘spraying’ the feedstuff. Flying a micro-light aircraft for this purpose is not difficult – about a weeks training (I have flown them for years).

The Southern Ocean (our East coast) is not for wussies and can be very turbulent – not conducive to growing algae. The nooks and crannies in our coastline (unsuitable for harbours) would make ideal sheltered growing areas. More areas could be evacuated, if necessary. They don’t have to be deep (about 1 metre). A bonus - the oxygen-starved ‘dead zone’ caused by carpets of algae along coast lines will also form a natural shark barrier. No more shark nets. ‘Down-the-line’ problems will undoubtedly occur, but combined with existing knowledge, they should be solvable. Any ‘problems’ which occur will be related to the extent of the algae cultivation area – everything else is low-risk and known (not to discount the odd curve ball). It’s not as if we [humanity] had a choice. Current speculation favours the virtual extinction of humanity after a horrible period of famine and drought. The algae solution can be implemented fairly quickly and speed is essential. The only sufferers are those heavily invested in fossil fuels.

The rest of your quote can be addressed by additives, blends, etc. It sounds like demonising rhetoric anyway. The only valid point (IMO) was the land and fresh water issue.

You've just opened a whole new world to me: Algaculture
Perhaps I should become that independent power producer on the route to obscene wealth

 

[Palimino]

You've just opened a whole new world to me: Algaculture
Perhaps I should become that independent power producer on the route to obscene wealth

The algae-to-biofuel would be an **extremely** non-trivial exercise. Hugely expensive (stolen) and requiring political will (absent). In addition, we have possibly alienated a potential mentor country (Israel) - a new concept doing the rounds is called ‘enlightened self-interest’ (duh!). Massive R&D and chemistry knowhow is required for pilot projects to get our ducks-in-a-row. As well as having the talent and motivation, Israel also has the calm Mediterranean Ocean, warm and suitable for algae biofuel experiments (we don’t want to wrestle with the turbulent Indian Ocean unnecessarily). Some assistance from us could see us [SA] sharing in the results. Could we have stuffed-up our relationship with ideological, PC gestures?

 

[Palimino]

The biofuel subsistence farming was to supply employment to a huge, unskilled population.

Related, but a digression.

What about feeding that huge, unskilled population? A secondary function of vast, shallow pans would be to provide a source of protein. In the algae to fuel strategy, imagine these vast, shallow (1 m?) pans scooped out of ‘dead’ land. The earth on the bottom of the pans is mixed with cement to provide a reasonably leak-proof surface so that water doesn’t drain away. Chicken poop (free?) provides the phosphate component to the algae. It thrives.

Algae production can be enhanced by gene modification. Cue Monsanto. It is not human foodstuff, so the usual genetically modified scare tactics are irrelevant. A big argument of the anti crowd is the contamination of neighbouring fields with regular crops. This won’t occur with algae. Gene modification (of algae) holds promise.

As the pans already exist, farming fish in them seems reasonable. Chicken poop forms a gourmet part of some fishes diet (bass?). Some other feed is also necessary. Unused fish food will simply rot on the bottom and provide algae feedstuff. So, the fish and the algae essentially have the same diet. They are harvested periodically to provide fuel and human food.

With evaporation, the ‘ponds’ will become progressively more saline, eventually impacting on the fish/algae project. The ‘ponds’ must be designed in such a way that they can be affected by sea tides. This will provide frequent, provide periodic ‘flushing’ of the ‘ponds’, water replenishment and water aeration for the fish (air deficient water, remember).

Note: With such vast bodies of water, evaporation, etc. a localised micro-climate is a virtual certainty. This will be intensified if the ‘dead’ ground is rimmed by mountains. This needs to be investigated.

 

[Palimino]

Algae from seawater? Link? I have better than that. I cannot supply a single link (although I have found they exist – Wikipedia & google) – which may be from a lone, obsessed weirdo - but I can make my logic chain visible. Possible search keys are in bold but the same info. would be available from a number of credible, ‘official’ sources.

My reasoning for seawater algae goes thus:

Algae blooms have been detected off the coast of Florida (newspaper archives).
Florida = desired destination for aged American’s in their ‘twilight years’ = death statistics are above normal as the oldies go to their ‘just reward’( Florida demographics) = complaints by grave diggers that they cannot easily dig the graves deep enough to meet health regulations before hitting clay or other water impermeable layers (I believe cremation is becoming popular) (Grave diggers union). The depth of the typical grave is dug in ‘shallow’ topsoil (geologically speaking).

This implies a high water table. This hypothesis is supported by the alligator infested, swampy / marshy ‘Everglades’ area (swamp geology ). This hypothesis is further supported by when e-TV used to run a program every Saturday at 18:05 - 'Seconds from Disaster' (SA TV records). This is a forensic reconstruction of events leading up to major disasters. On the 6/9/2008 they detailed the disaster of an American airliner which crashed in the Everglades (FAA accident investigation report). They made the point that the airliner destruction was so complete because it hit the limestone bedrock under the Everglades swamp surface.

Farming in the area uses phosphate fertiliser. So, phosphate-rich water from rain and irrigation can’t drain into the soil because of the water impermeable limestone layer thus drains into the closest river. The river flows into a coastal lagoon. The lagoon opens-up periodically to the sea. (Fertiliser make-up, riverine systems)

My geography gets a bit shaky here (Atlas). The ‘sea’ is the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf has warm waters and is not particularly rough (there is little dilution) (CIA Factbook?). So when the lagoons open-up to the sea, it provides good conditions for algal growth (nutrients & warm water) = algal blooms.

From this I deduce that algae grows well in seawater. There is plenty of salt water in the seas of the world. Tons of algae can be harvested for fuel. This is in addition to other alternative sources. The cost per barrel is approx. $60.00 (cheaper than fossil fuels which are currently at $125.00/barrel). The impact of biofuel (compared to fossil fuels) on climate change ranges from 50% (worst case) to over 80%. It’s not the ideal solution but it gives oil independence and uses existing oil-based infrastructure – there are many interest groups (oil, car manufacturer’s, refinery operators, etc.) here intent on preserving the status quo.

 

[Palimino]

Bio-fuels is the only way for SA to go. It has the potential to provide employment and food for the unskilled, uneducated ignorant majority.

Consider the alternatives:

#1 Nuclear = Dangerous (as Japan has shown us). SA is politically unstable with a massive lack of skills.
#2 Hydroelectric = SA is arid – no water in sufficient quantities.
#3 Geothermal = SA is not a geothermal country.
#4 Methane generators = Complex (for an ignorant majority) and would have to be decentralised. Eskom will have kittens.
#5 Solar = Maybe practical for geysers and suchlike. Impractical, expensive and fragile for solar panel arrays.

In addition, there is a hugely powerful and wealthy lobby supporting ‘big oil’. This includes most of the ME, some African countries, North Sea oil, Norway, etc. Not to mention US oil interests, lobbies and companies (Exxon, Shell, BP, etc.). Stacked against this are the ‘green’ activists crusading on moral grounds – they didn’t stand a chance against the profit motive and commerce. They have been recently aided by pressure exerted by climate change and the need for oil independence (and the increasing price of oil). This is their time.

The idea that these interests, combined with Joe Soap whose internal combustion clunker has served him for years (because he can’t afford to upgrade) are going to take to expensive electric ‘green’ vehicles or fuel cell & hydrogen technologies (with no existing infrastructure), is a pipe dream. With bio-fuels, only minor modifications are required to the clunker and existing power stations. The oil infrastructure can be used (refineries, pipelines, garages, etc.). Stuff stays essentially the same so little retraining and spending on infrastructure is required. The carbon footprint is cut significantly, oil independence is possible and the ignorant majority have a source of protein. Win/win.