Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[AndyH]

I'm going to get into my ethanol-fueled truck tomorrow and drive to the only dairy in a 250 mile radius that sells raw milk. It's a 55 mile round trip.

I could make that drive once in a row in a new LEAF. I might not be able to make the drive in a 3-year old LEAF. Recharging on the way isn't an option as there's no infrastructure.

The truck has a 200 mile range when burning ethanol and running the air conditioner. A similarly-sized FCEV can travel another hundred miles after I run out of ethanol - and another 224 miles after a new LEAF runs out of charge.

Before one can look at 'efficiency' they need to start with equipment with similar capabilities and with equipment that can meet the needs of the mission.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I'm going to get into my ethanol-fueled truck tomorrow and drive to the only dairy in a 250 mile radius that sells raw milk. It's a 55 mile round trip....
Before one can look at 'efficiency' they need to start with equipment with similar capabilities and with equipment that can meet the needs of the mission.

You need to look at cost, also. I can fly a really nice A-Star helicopter for the same mission using bio-fuel. I will bet it manages to cost a bit more than even a fully amortized cost of a hydrogen vehicle trip.

The cost of hydrogen personal transport is crazy compared to the COMPETITION... battery electric vehicles. Obviously, comparing a short range BEV to a longer range H2 car is silly, but for whatever reason, that makes sense to you as a way to support your cause.

I'm actually fully in support of H2 for industry level use; grid backup / stabilization, etc. I actually think many, if not most, of the BEV advocates are, too. Like normal, it's a non-sequitur.

We obviously have settled into saying the same stuff over and over, and doing that doesn't change the fact that H2 for private mass personal transport is:

1) more dangerous than BEV

2) more expensive than BEV of equivalent performance

3) less efficient in use of electrical power than a BEV




http://www.wingswheelswatercraft.com/wings_wheels_aircraft_2007-01/helicopters/eurocopter_astar_n956wa_tam/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[WetEV]

I'm going to get into my ethanol-fueled truck tomorrow

As it takes fossil fuels to make the ethanol, and the EROEI is only slightly greater than one, you are basically driving a 30% higher MPG version of an oil powered ICE.

 

[hill]

I'm going to get into my ethanol-fueled truck tomorrow

As it takes fossil fuels to make the ethanol, and the EROEI is only slightly greater than one, you are basically driving a 30% higher MPG version of an oil powered ICE.

When you factor in lower btu's for ethanol, AND how it wastes its perfectly good food stock that it could/should have gone to feed starving people ... I'm thinking LESS than one. But hey .... we gotta keep the gmo corporate farmers' demand up, right?
.

 

[Stoaty]

As it takes fossil fuels to make the ethanol, and the EROEI is only slightly greater than one, you are basically driving a 30% higher MPG version of an oil powered ICE.

FCEV - the "corn ethanol" of the 21st century

 

[TonyWilliams]

As it takes fossil fuels to make the ethanol, and the EROEI is only slightly greater than one, you are basically driving a 30% higher MPG version of an oil powered ICE.

FCEV - the "corn ethanol" of the 21st century

I guess it doesn't surprise me that somebody wouldn't see the shortcomings of ethanol, any more than those of H2.

All that ethanol produced by diesel powered farm equipment with virtually ZERO emission controls, plus it requires a base material, in this case food. Hydrogen takes beau coup electrical power plus a base material, fossil fuel.

Dirty and less efficient; I think ethanol is truly the H2 equivalent. A truly excellent observation.

 

[AndyH]

Why am I not surprised?

First, not one of you - WetEV, hill, or Stoaty (or Tony...) - commented on the MAIN POINT of the post, which is one of capability and carbon neutrality. Strike one.

WetEV - aside from my first point, your second failure is your assumption that fossil fuel was used to make the ethanol I used. It wasn't. Your third is that you present an incorrect EROEI number as being significant (it isn't). The fourth is by feeling the need to remind me that driving an ICE is actually driving an ICE. News flash, smart boy - my goal is to get as far into carbon negative territory as possible and use the least amount of fossil fuel as possible WHILE PERFORMING THE MISSIONS I NEED TO PERFORM.

hill - your failure is in parroting the oil industry message that the BTU value is the critical factor (it isn't), in parroting the fossil fuel message that ethanol is only made from 'food' (it isn't), that ethanol requires a black and white choice of 'food or fuel' (it doesn't), and that the fuel I'm using is made from corn (it isn't). Hell of a nice try, though...

Stoaty - no. Just no.

Ok, ok - I'll open Tony William's post and see what he has to say. Not surprised. I should have left the post unread.

Ethanol in Texas is made mostly from sweet sorghum, not corn. Biofuels are used for processing. None of these has anything to do with 'food'. While the BTU content of a gallon of ethanol is lower than a gallon of gasoline, the thermal efficiency of ethanol (about 40%) is almost twice gasoline. While there's more energy available in a gallon of gasoline, much of it isn't released in an ICE and is dumped as pollution. The energy in ethanol is more completely released - when ethanol is burned in a high compression engine it has similar efficiency to diesel fuel (38-42%). It's also an oxygenated fuel that burns much more cleanly, is not a carcinogen, is biodegradable, and is CARBON NEGATIVE. In the US, corn is used as an ethanol feedstock solely because we grow too much of the damn stuff. I agree - the US industrial ag system is a mess and should be scrapped - but ethanol is not driving that train wreck. We have other options that are much more efficient, don't require irrigation or fertilizer, and are regenerative (not just 'sustainable'). When corn is used, it's not a 'food vs fuel' situation because the corn used is not 'food' - it's a genetically engineered/selected industrial feedstock that's taken apart and turned into Cheetos, booze and animal feed. For the portion of corn used to make ethanol, only the sugar and some starch is used. The remaining components - oil, vitamins, minerals, fiber, some starch, and all the brewers yeast and their addition of vitamins and minerals - is a higher quality and more digestible animal feed than raw corn. The US ethanol industry essentially makes high quality animal feed with ethanol as a value-added by product.

By missing the main point, parroting fossil fuel myths, and not understanding the reason that we MUST make other choices, the best advice I can offer each of you is not to quit your day jobs...

 

[Smidge204]

While the BTU content of a gallon of ethanol is lower than a gallon of gasoline, the thermal efficiency of ethanol (about 40%) is almost twice gasoline. While there's more energy available in a gallon of gasoline, much of it isn't released in an ICE and is dumped as pollution.

The thermal efficiency of an ICE is *entirely* based on compression ratio. Ethanol can get diesel-like efficiencies only in engines with the required compression; so if you're burning ethanol in an otherwise normal gasoline engine, you are gaining nothing.

It's not a matter of the energy "being more completely released" - combustion efficiency of gasoline in a properly tuned and operating engine will be damn near perfect. Don't confuse combustion efficiency and thermal efficiency.

When corn is used, it's not a 'food vs fuel' situation because the corn used is not 'food' - it's a genetically engineered/selected industrial feedstock that's taken apart and turned into Cheetos, booze and animal feed.

The US ethanol industry essentially makes high quality animal feed with ethanol as a value-added by product.

You literally just said; "The corn is not used for food, it's used for food." You then reinforced that sentiment by saying that it even makes better food.

Sorghum, by the way... also used for food. Even if you don't agree, the land used for growing it could at least be used for growing something even you would consider food.

And what does genetic engineering have to do with it? Dropping a little non-sequitur in there are we? (That raw milk comment earlier is also a bit of an eyebrow-raiser. There's a reason food poisoning is much less common now even despite arguably worse practices overall)


So back on the "original point" - I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing on capability (as in range, presumably) and potential carbon neutrality of hydrogen as a fuel. I mean, your own arguments could be used to support bunker fuel for container ships, because when we consider the capability and "needs of the mission" those condo-sized engines get a whopping 60%+ thermal efficiency! So I don't think it's entirely wrong to bypass the parts I think we all agree on (every technology has a niche to fill) and focus on the practicalities of wider adoption.
=Smidge=

 

[AndyH]

While the BTU content of a gallon of ethanol is lower than a gallon of gasoline, the thermal efficiency of ethanol (about 40%) is almost twice gasoline. While there's more energy available in a gallon of gasoline, much of it isn't released in an ICE and is dumped as pollution.

The thermal efficiency of an ICE is *entirely* based on compression ratio. Ethanol can get diesel-like efficiencies only in engines with the required compression; so if you're burning ethanol in an otherwise normal gasoline engine, you are gaining nothing.

Almost, Smidge. Yes, to get the better efficiency from ethanol and it's 105+ octane level, one needs a high-compression engine. The price per gallon gap between gasoline and ethanol covers the fuel economy loss due to the substandard engine I'm forced to use. But even with the need to use a superior fuel in an inferior engine, I still benefit because my goal, as already stated, is to be at least carbon neutral - and ethanol is carbon negative, even in our fossil-fuel dependent distribution system.

It's not a matter of the energy "being more completely released" - combustion efficiency of gasoline in a properly tuned and operating engine will be damn near perfect. Don't confuse combustion efficiency and thermal efficiency.

If you consider an ICE's conversion of about 20% of the available energy into movement to be "damn near perfect" then we might not be able to continue here... I guarantee that I'm not confusing these.

When corn is used, it's not a 'food vs fuel' situation because the corn used is not 'food' - it's a genetically engineered/selected industrial feedstock that's taken apart and turned into Cheetos, booze and animal feed.

The US ethanol industry essentially makes high quality animal feed with ethanol as a value-added by product.

You literally just said; "The corn is not used for food, it's used for food." You then reinforced that sentiment by saying that it even makes better food.

Sorghum, by the way... also used for food. Even if you don't agree, the land used for growing it could at least be used for growing something even you would consider food.

Not human food, Smidge. Let's recap, as we've covered this on this forum in detail at least three times.

- The vast majority of corn grown in the USA is 'dent corn' which is an industrial feedstock. Some is used to feed cattle - correct. When used this way, it is a horrible food that leads to illness in the cow because at least in part because the sugar and starch in corn disrupts their digestive system and makes it a better environment for harmful bacteria. Feeding cattle corn results directly in contaminated meat (the cows are incubating the e coli) and overuse of antibiotics (and thus selective breeding of antibiotic resistant organisms).
- Some of the corn destined to become animal feed is shipped overseas - its mass results in needing more gallons of fuel burned and more climate-changing emissions than if a more efficient food is transported.
- When corn is used to make ethanol, it is not corn destined to become processed human 'food' like Cheetos - it is corn destined for the animal feed chain. As already stated here, the fermentation process adds yeast and vitamins/minerals the yeast need and only the sugars and most starch is used to make fuel. The portions of the corn that remain - the fat, fiber, cellulose; and the nutritious yeast, vitamins, and minerals that do not leave the system - are directly digestable by cattle and do not poison their digestive system. This is a superior animal feed, a higher-value product than dent corn, and costs less to transport per calorie than corn. In the real world it is FOOD AND FUEL, not the other way around.

And what does genetic engineering have to do with it? Dropping a little non-sequitur in there are we? (That raw milk comment earlier is also a bit of an eyebrow-raiser. There's a reason food poisoning is much less common now even despite arguably worse practices overall)

The GMO comment was in response to hill as my post was replying to him, Wet, Stoaty, and Tom.

Yes, there's a reason that food poisoning is reduced when milk is pasturized - but the poisons didn't come from healthy cows. When you look into the history of milk in the US, you'll find that raw milk best practices were born out of deaths not caused by the raw milk industry, but by corporate milk producers using flour and chalk to whiten and thus sell spoiled milk. Raw milk contains organisms that our digestive system needs to maintain healthy functioning - and those same critters also protect the milk from the usual contaminants to the system between milking and drinking.

So back on the "original point" - I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing on capability (as in range, presumably) and potential carbon neutrality of hydrogen as a fuel. I mean, your own arguments could be used to support bunker fuel for container ships, because when we consider the capability and "needs of the mission" those condo-sized engines get a whopping 60%+ thermal efficiency! So I don't think it's entirely wrong to bypass the parts I think we all agree on (every technology has a niche to fill) and focus on the practicalities of wider adoption.
=Smidge=

Anyone that would take any of my comments to support producing H2 that is NOT from 100% carbon-neutral AND renewable sources (as I've said many times in this thread) is in their own world, not commenting on mine. Likewise for anyone suggesting that I support use of bunker fuel. I'm on record in this thread suggesting that if we insist on shipping iPhones all over the world that we should use nuclear power and sails rather than fuel cells, batteries, bunker-, or any other fossil fuel. (I'd rather that globalization go the way of coal and we start making things in this country again, but that's yet another tangent...)

Sorry, no - the land used for sorghum isn't suitable for growing much else, and certainly not food. You might want to visit W Texas some time.

I might have misread something here, Smidge, but I think that I can agree completely that we need ALL electric options for transportation and that if we can pull our heads out of ...where ever they're stored that we can do a much better job of integrating all of our systems into a highly efficient network without killing ourselves or the planet.

 

[Smidge204]

If you consider an ICE's conversion of about 20% of the available energy into movement to be "damn near perfect" then we might not be able to continue here... I guarantee that I'm not confusing these.

You totally are though :|

Combustion efficiency is what percentage of the fuel is burned. In other words, how complete the chemical reaction is.

Thermal efficiency is what percentage of the energy is able to be captured to do work. This is a theoretical value rarely, if ever, achieved in real machines. It is not dependent on where the heat energy comes from.

Now you're introducing overall efficiency, which is how much of the chemical potential energy stored in the fuel makes it to the wheels. This adds in things like pumping losses and friction on top of everything else.

Not human food, Smidge.

Corn starch - the entire reason dent corn even exists - is processed into all manner of foodstuffs. For example - and I don't intend this to be a defense of the practice - the extraction of starches and the conversion of it into corn syrup leaves exactly the same animal feedstock behind.

You're not going to get an argument in favor of factory farming from me, though. It's a pedantic observation that we are de-optimizing the production of human-fuel in favor of machine-fuel.

Also of note that the same starch is feedstock for the production of polylactide, a biodegradable plastic I use exclusively in my 3D printing hobby. :lol:

Reading up on Sorghum, it seems it's pretty much a normal crop requiring arable land with the exception that it's compatible with zero tillage. For non-irrigated lands yield is reduced just like almost anything else.

Raw milk contains organisms that our digestive system needs to maintain healthy functioning

Diphtheria is not a "poison," and I'm quite sure our digestive systems function perfectly well without it. This clearly isn't the thread to get any deeper into this discussion, so I propose we set this aside as something we will profoundly disagree on.
=Smidge=

 

[WetEV]

your assumption that fossil fuel was used to make the ethanol I used. It wasn't.

Biofuel powered tractors? Biofuel fertilizer production and all that?? Impressive, if true. I doubt it.

Of course, biofuels can't replace anything close to the current liquid fuels consumption, 10% of US gasoline and diesel is estimated to require 38% of US cropland. Might be better to allow forests to regrow on former cropland.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/317/5840/902" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[mbender]

And what does genetic engineering have to do with it? Dropping a little non-sequitur in there are we? (That raw milk comment earlier is also a bit of an eyebrow-raiser. There's a reason food poisoning is much less common now even despite arguably worse practices overall)

Yes, there's a reason that food poisoning is reduced when milk is pasturized - but the poisons didn't come from healthy cows. When you look into the history of milk in the US, you'll find that raw milk best practices were born out of deaths not caused by the raw milk industry, but by corporate milk producers using flour and chalk to whiten and thus sell spoiled milk. Raw milk contains organisms that our digestive system needs to maintain healthy functioning - and those same critters also protect the milk from the usual contaminants to the system between milking and drinking.

I suggest we start a separate off-topic thread on the raw milk debate so we can get a feel for what real conflict, disagreement and argument is like! ;-) I'm mostly a lurker in this discussion, but judge it to be a bit polite and tame compared to what I've seen (and experienced first-hand) over raw vs. pasteurized milk. LOL

Separate and a little more on-topic, much as I love "systems-thinking" and "holistic approaches" to problem solving, there seems to be one big drawback or obstacle in implementing some of the solutions, right as they may be. And that is that in order to get the best (or sometimes even any) results, many changes need to be made simultaneously. Some of that is evident in the (above) FCEV and even ethanol "conundrums", but it applies to larger national, international and global/planetary issues as well.

And our policymakers, even when they aren't completely dysfunctional, are pretty linear-minded in their approach to 'solutions'. Hopefully this will change with a new generation (and dare I say gender ratio) of systems-thinking leaders, but the difficulty in overcoming this particular challenge does not portend well, at least in the near term.

 

[GRA]

<snip rest, as I don't wish to continue an argument that has already been argued to death>

But really, GRA, you appear to be here to argue against all cars, as you have in this and many threads. Please make your own thread for that. By painting BEVs and FCVs with the same brush as you like to do, you really are promoting status quo and ultimately more damage to the environment.

Reg, that's me using sarcasm. Although I fully believe that the best way to reduce negative human impacts on the environment, as well as to make "Cities for People" (the title of urban planner Jan Gehl's book) instead of cities for cars is via mixed-use densification, I know perfectly well that a society such as ours that has built so many cities that are only possible because of and which require cars to get around in (Phoenix and Atlanta being typical examples) won't change quickly. Some specific examples of techniques used to improve sprawl cities can be found is such books by urban planners and architects as "Retrofitting Suburbia" by Ellen Dunham-Jones and June Williamson, and "Sprawl Repair Manual" by Galina Tachieva, but a more general treatment can be found in "Walkable City" by Jeff Speck.

The great cities of the world (as opposed to just the biggest ones) are walking/biking/transit cities. As an example, the per capita energy consumption [Edit: Should read GHG production; energy usage is also far lower] of a resident of New York City is about 1/3rd of the average American's, 7.1 tons versus 24.5 tons, and it isn't because they're all ardent greens, it's because the density makes it possible to walk/bike or take transit to anywhere they need to go, there's lots of mixed-use so there are _places to go to_ within easy walking distance, and apartment buildings, towers and row houses all use far less energy than detached single family homes. 54% of NYC residents don't own cars; 77% of Manhattanites don't. NYC has been on a cycle track/lane/path building boom since about 2007, typically by re-dedicating lanes from cars to bikes, vastly increasing the number of people who commute by bicycle while simultaneously reducing the number of accidents. In fact, in Bicycling magazine's just released bi-annual survey of the "50 Best Bike Cities" in the U.S, NYC leapt from #7 in 2012 to #1 (with Chicago having moved up from 5th to 2nd), ahead of the usual 'green' suspects like Minneapolis @ #3, Portland #4, Boulder #6, S.F #7, Seattle #8. Washington D.C ranked 5th, and rounding out the top 10 were Ft Collins #9, and Cambridge, Ma. #10.

Fortunately, it appears that these are exactly the kind of cities that tech savvy Millennials want to live and work in, so we're seeing a renaissance of urban city centers and neighborhoods (and also the gentrification that tends to go along with it, which is a hard but not insoluble problem). Sprawl depends on cheap energy, and it's not at all surprising that the subdivisions where people had the longest car commutes were the ones with the greatest rate of mortgage defaults during the recession; in fact, the ones at the top were in California's Central Valley, as people who "drove til they qualified" found that they could no longer afford 3-4 hour roundtrip commutes to the Bay Area. As energy prices rise, sprawl will become increasingly unsustainable regardless of what we power cars with.

While I'm not generally against subsidies for most emerging tech AFVs at this time, I am against subsidizing people with $300k+ incomes to buy Teslas, and for that matter subsidizing people in general who really don't need the help: http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-electric-car-rebates-20140807-story.html#page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Tesla has shown for over two years now that it is possible to build a BEV that is at least within shouting distance of ICE capability (as long as there's sufficient infrastructure), and which I believe can compete in its limited market niche without subsidy. As such, I don't feel that continued subsidies are necessary at that level of price for BEVs, and that holds true even more so for PHEVs. Senator de Leon's bill described above, that Jerry Brown just signed, is a modest step in the right direction towards using subsidies more efficiently so that more people with typical middle class incomes can consider BEVs or other AFVs, instead or primarily helping people who don't need it.

As to FCEVs, we're still too early in the deployment stage to pull subsidies from them, even though their current prices are comparable to a Model S and their range capabilities equal or greater. Once enough get out there that a fair percentage of people are aware of them and some company offers a compelling vehicle like the Model S, I'll be all for pulling subsidies from FCEVs and their infrastructure as well. Or they'll fail to take off and BEVs will advance quickly enough so that FCEVs aren't needed, and we can pull the plug for that reason.

 

[TonyWilliams]

First, not one of you - WetEV, hill, or Stoaty (or Tony...) - commented on the MAIN POINT of the post, which is one of capability and carbon neutrality

Using farm products for transport (ethanol) is not "carbon neutral". Having grown up and worked in professional farming, it is anything but that. From fertilizer to plowing, seeding, harvesting, trucking, etc... it's all fossil fuel, and lots of it, all with concern for emissions.

WetEV - aside from my first point, your second failure is your assumption that fossil fuel was used to make the ethanol I used. It wasn't.

Yes, you may have some corner market farm somewhere with JimBob toiling the field by hand or with a horse and a goat. I don't know. I do know that farming is not on the horizon as becoming carbon neutral.

... ethanol is only made from 'food' (it isn't), that ethanol requires a black and white choice of 'food or fuel' (it doesn't), and that the fuel I'm using is made from corn (it isn't). Hell of a nice try, though...

Anytime farm land is used for transport uses, it is using land that otherwise would make a food crop (for humans or livestock, which ultimately feeds humans). I really don't care if you personally drive around that way; heck, I bought distillery equipment in the 1970's just for that same purpose. But, it's not a world solution.

Ok, ok - I'll open Tony William's post and see what he has to say. Not surprised. I should have left the post unread.

I'm a little hurt... I thought we had an understanding here. We say H2, and you say Electric. Uh, maybe I got that backwards.

The US ethanol industry essentially makes high quality animal feed with ethanol as a value-added by product.

Let's just say I disagree with the premise you present; yes, we make high quality food, but as is SOOOOooooooo common in your arguments, ya leave out the meat and potatoes. You know, the diesel powered part I mentioned above.

By missing the main point, parroting fossil fuel myths, and not understanding the reason that we MUST make other choices, the best advice I can offer each of you is not to quit your day jobs...

I think most of us understand your point(s) perfectly; we just disagree on their validity. We all know we have to make other choices and we all know fossil fuels aren't it.

Not fossil fuel hydrogen or fossil fuel farming. Here's a challenge for you, Andy. Why don't you see if you can stop telling us about the things we ALL agree one (as if you were the only one with the idea here).

Fossil fuels = bad. End of discussion.

 

[TonyWilliams]

As to FCEVs, we're still too early in the deployment stage to pull subsidies from them, even though their current prices are comparable to a Model S and their range capabilities equal or greater. Once enough get out there that a fair percentage of people are aware of them and some company offers a compelling vehicle like the Model S, I'll be all for pulling subsidies from FCEVs and their infrastructure as well. Or they'll fail to take off and BEVs will advance quickly enough so that FCEVs aren't needed, and we can pull the plug for that reason.

Does anybody know if SpaceX uses hydrogen fuel cells? Or batteries? Or something else?

 

[AndyH]

your assumption that fossil fuel was used to make the ethanol I used. It wasn't.

Biofuel powered tractors? Biofuel fertilizer production and all that?? Impressive, if true. I doubt it.

Of course, biofuels can't replace anything close to the current liquid fuels consumption, 10% of US gasoline and diesel is estimated to require 38% of US cropland. Might be better to allow forests to regrow on former cropland.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/317/5840/902" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't doubt your doubt, Wet, as we've been here many times before and as we are with nuclear power, I don't expect you to agree with me even if we are both looking at the same piece of cloudless mid-day sky and wondering if it's blue or pink. LOL

You keep doing this, however, and I'm calling you on it again: Your suggestion that biofuels don't work or that we cannot make enough of them to replace 100% of our needs is a big, ugly, out on the dock for three weeks nastified red herring and I think you know it. NOBODY - NOBODY! but you is putting that out as an option. I am not, the EPA is not - hell, even this country's ethanol industry is not! :lol: So that's the first problem. The second is that your cropland numbers assume...something only known to you growing some plant only known to you using some processes only known to you. I cannot access the article you linked so will have to assume a bit, as being an environmental science student and a permaculturist and student of agroforestry, silvoculture, and restoration agriculture, I have some book- and real-world experience with this. I've made and used ethanol and biodiesel from new and used oil and from yeast and sugar or yeast and potatoes through the still and into my fuel tank.

(It might seem to be a tangent here to many, but I promise it's spot-on topic.)

When I say 'ethanol' on this forum, after the spitting and sputtering has died down, people like you, Wet, say it won't work because 1. corn 2. big ag 3. government welfare 4. aliens. (Ok, I made up the part about aliens...I think...) When I said in the 'Solutions thread' that biofuels are part of the solution I meant then as I do now that the critical word is PART. Also, when I suggest biofuels are part of the solution to our fossil carbon problem, I'm not at all talking about big ag, chemical ag, diesel tractors, broad-scale agriculture, (hmmm...I think that covers all the euphemisms for the train wreck that's causing the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico...no, not the BP oil spill, the other one...)

So, here's a real-world example. This is being done today - right now - in SW Wisconsin. No diesel, no chemicals at all, no synthetic fertilizer, no crop dusters - none none none of what most of you will think about when someone says 'farm' or 'biofuel'. There's a GMO-free area (a no-drift zone) in SW Wisconsin where a number of farmers have established food and fuel co-ops and community-supported agriculture (CSA) operations. The ecologist/mechanical engineer/permaculturist/farmer behind part of it has planted his 110 acre farm in trees. His restoration agriculture project is replanting the oak savannah that used to fill most of the continental USA before idiots...er...people cut the trees to plant wheat. He's doing this because an oak savannah is the number 1 most productive biome on the planet and is capable of supporting the highest mass of mammals the planet's ever seen. This biome works, as does the natural world when humans stay clear of it, by continually improving the environment at room temperature without chemicals, tractors, fertilizer, or fossil fuels, or poisons or by spreading cancer to adjoining critters. His twist is that all of the trees and bushes selected produce human and animal food, fiber, and medicine.

The 3-dimensional farm starts with chestnuts (which can completely replace corn in our industrial ag system - the Cheetos are safe...), then down towards the ground are apples, then hazelnuts (or cherries/peaches/plums), then raspberries/blueberries/blackberries, the gooseberries/currants, then grapes, then fungi, then grasses. Animals graze and prune and fertilize and control pests as do various other plants in the mix. Everything is a cash crop - from the chestnuts to the grapes, to the acorn and apple finished pork. All of the crops are harvested with stock tree-crop harvesters we have today. All of the equipment runs from waste vegetable oil that's part of their 'oil cartel' that begins with hazelnuts (more oil content than corn or soy) plus human and animal feed after the nuts are pressed. The new oil is sold to local potato chip producers, and is sold back to the 'cartel' for filtering, dewatering, and use to run all of the equipment.

This, folks, is an example of permaculture which requires getting multiple uses from every step, every piece - just like nature does. It's also an example of a completely fossil-fuel free network of agribusiness that can feed us at least as well as our current system does. Peer-reviewed study of the processes and yields from this and other examples happening around the world show that during a 'perfect' year it slightly out-produces conventional ag*** - and in anything from a 'slight' drought or 'slight' flood through to extreme on either end it SIGNIFICANTLY outproduces what we've been doing all along.

edit... *** This anecdote about drought production is actually from the Rodale organic farm work they've been doing since about 1947. The comparison for Shepard's restoration farm is as follows from page 180 of his book:

In our 17 yars of experience at New Forest Farm...Adding all of the calories per acre totals together:
Plant Polyculture: 4,598,291.2
Animal Polyculture: 1,068,929.74 (cattle - beef and milk, pigs, turkeys, chickens, sometimes goats)
Honey and mushrooms: 310,499.0
Total human food calories: 5,977,719,96 per acre

The oak savanna mimic, restoration agriculture system produces more than twice the number of edible human calories per acre as an average acre of corn.

The restoration agriculture system produces more than twice the human calories per acre as an acre of corn; it is perennial and never needs to be planted again. It prevents erosion, creates soil, and can be managed with no fossil fuel inputs. This means that its total net caloric gain is almost infinitely greater than an average acre of genetically modified, #2 yellow dent corn grown in America. The nutrient difference per acre is nearly incalculable.

/edit

That's where I'm standing when I put this out as an option! In no way am I suggesting that we cut all the trees and plant more GMO soy to make biodiesel, or allow SE Asia to continue to clear old-growth forest to replace them will more palm plantations so we can fuel another 10% of cars with palm-derived biodiesel.

Long story short, Wet - if we needed to we absolutely COULD provide food and fuel from this type of ag even if we didn't sell a single BEV or FCEV - and we could do it by restoring the ground, building soil, restoring habitat, and sequestering carbon as well. Working WITH nature - as part of nature - means we have true synergy. Continuing to work the way we have been is cancer.

Same thing for the Third Industrial Revolution and H2 - yes, it's a "re-imagining" of the entire processes - three processes, or stovepipes actually - but we know it works because it's being done. I have no doubt that if enough of us demanded it, put our bodies and money and time behind it, that we could get politicians behind it - same with the utility industries. One thing we seem to have forgotten in this country is that in the long run it doesn't matter what politicians say because they still work for us - we've been the absentee landlords in the mix, not them. Tag, dammit - we're "IT"! :lol:

If anyone cares (I expect two of you will, actually), the Wisconsin farm has a web site, some youtube videos that give an overview, and an absolutely fantastic book (I say that as a geek, permaculturist, and amateur futurist ).

Mark Spepard's website - video links
http://www.forestag.com/media1.html
His book about his farm (this is an excellent environmental science/restoration agriculture/agroforestry/silvoculture/North American biome guide - it's really well done and very readable.)
http://www.amazon.com/Restoration-A...0357/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1411769725&sr=8-1

Two audio interviews in podcast form:
http://www.thepermaculturepodcast.com/2014/marks1/
http://www.thepermaculturepodcast.com/2014/marks2/

Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mark+shepard+restoration

Last word: I don't care if anyone believes me or not - I think I've provided plenty of source material and have gone out of my way to try to build a bridge of understanding here. It's not going to work 100% of the time and that's ok. But I promise each of you - even you, Wet that I'm not making this stuff up!

edit...typos; fleshed out the trees used on Shepard's farm.

 

[GRA]

As to FCEVs, we're still too early in the deployment stage to pull subsidies from them, even though their current prices are comparable to a Model S and their range capabilities equal or greater. Once enough get out there that a fair percentage of people are aware of them and some company offers a compelling vehicle like the Model S, I'll be all for pulling subsidies from FCEVs and their infrastructure as well. Or they'll fail to take off and BEVs will advance quickly enough so that FCEVs aren't needed, and we can pull the plug for that reason.

Does anybody know if SpaceX uses hydrogen fuel cells? Or batteries? Or something else?

Solar wings and batteries, apparently:

"Another innovation is fitting the Dragon with a solar array. This has never been done with an American manned spacecraft before. All the previous ones have relied on fuel cells. The Dragon's solar panels give the craft a much longer in-orbit duration because fuel cells only operate for as long as they have fuel. With solar panels, the Dragon can remain on station for a week in the manned version (limited now by the air and water on board) and a year for the cargo version."

http://www.gizmag.com/date-set-for-spacex-dragon-launch/20810/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TonyWilliams]

As to FCEVs, we're still too early in the deployment stage to pull subsidies from them, even though their current prices are comparable to a Model S and their range capabilities equal or greater. Once enough get out there that a fair percentage of people are aware of them and some company offers a compelling vehicle like the Model S, I'll be all for pulling subsidies from FCEVs and their infrastructure as well. Or they'll fail to take off and BEVs will advance quickly enough so that FCEVs aren't needed, and we can pull the plug for that reason.

Does anybody know if SpaceX uses hydrogen fuel cells? Or batteries? Or something else?

Solar wings and batteries, apparently:

"Another innovation is fitting the Dragon with a solar array. This has never been done with an American manned spacecraft before. All the previous ones have relied on fuel cells. The Dragon's solar panels give the craft a much longer in-orbit duration because fuel cells only operate for as long as they have fuel. With solar panels, the Dragon can remain on station for a week in the manned version (limited now by the air and water on board) and a year for the cargo version."

http://www.gizmag.com/date-set-for-spacex-dragon-launch/20810/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems battery / solar wins in space, too.

Thanks for posting that.

 

[AndyH]

As to FCEVs, we're still too early in the deployment stage to pull subsidies from them, even though their current prices are comparable to a Model S and their range capabilities equal or greater. Once enough get out there that a fair percentage of people are aware of them and some company offers a compelling vehicle like the Model S, I'll be all for pulling subsidies from FCEVs and their infrastructure as well. Or they'll fail to take off and BEVs will advance quickly enough so that FCEVs aren't needed, and we can pull the plug for that reason.

Does anybody know if SpaceX uses hydrogen fuel cells? Or batteries? Or something else?

Solar wings and batteries, apparently:

"Another innovation is fitting the Dragon with a solar array. This has never been done with an American manned spacecraft before. All the previous ones have relied on fuel cells. The Dragon's solar panels give the craft a much longer in-orbit duration because fuel cells only operate for as long as they have fuel. With solar panels, the Dragon can remain on station for a week in the manned version (limited now by the air and water on board) and a year for the cargo version."

http://www.gizmag.com/date-set-for-spacex-dragon-launch/20810/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The manned Dragon will be going to Mars - not sure if PV+battery will still be the thing. Thanks for looking this up - I'll check in with Mars-One and see if I can find out more.

 

[AndyH]

If you consider an ICE's conversion of about 20% of the available energy into movement to be "damn near perfect" then we might not be able to continue here... I guarantee that I'm not confusing these.

You totally are though :|

Combustion efficiency is what percentage of the fuel is burned. In other words, how complete the chemical reaction is.

Thermal efficiency is what percentage of the energy is able to be captured to do work. This is a theoretical value rarely, if ever, achieved in real machines. It is not dependent on where the heat energy comes from.

Now you're introducing overall efficiency, which is how much of the chemical potential energy stored in the fuel makes it to the wheels. This adds in things like pumping losses and friction on top of everything else.

I don't disagree with you here with regards to terms. The info I'm communicating, though, isn't based on theory - it's efficiency numbers published in SAE papers. The last eval I recall was done in the US, I believe by a US auto manufacturer. They took a stock 1.9 liter VW TDI (turbodiesel), fitted it with gasoline injectors, and ran it on pure ethanol. I'll see if I can find the paper (it's linked on the forum once for sure, possibly twice). Efficiency was in the 42% range - better than the turbodiesel burning diesel. Brazil runs an ethanol mix in their diesel buses - higher efficiency than diesel in that service as well. And in both cases most of the emission control hardware could be eliminated - freeing up platinum to use in fuel cells. :lol:

edit...found some of the background. Ethanol: 44% in the TDI, 39% in medium duty diesel trucks.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=208514#p208514
http://papers.sae.org/2002-01-2743/
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentations/sae-2002-01-2743-v2.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentations/2007-01-3993-alcohol-final.pdf
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=341565#p341565
/edit

Not human food, Smidge.

Corn starch - the entire reason dent corn even exists - is processed into all manner of foodstuffs. For example - and I don't intend this to be a defense of the practice - the extraction of starches and the conversion of it into corn syrup leaves exactly the same animal feedstock behind.

We've torn this apart as well - I'll see if I can find the charts and percentages. Bottom line is that the ~38% of the corn used to make fuel came out of the portion of the crop considered 'excess' - it wasn't the corn contracted by the processors (ADM, Monsanto, etc.) for human food and other sundry experiments in flours, oils, HFCS, fiber, de-icers, dust control products, etc. (How come the fossil fuel industry isn't protesting airline flights in the winter when corn-based de-icing fluids are taking food out of mouths in Uganda? ROFL)
http://www.adm.com/_layouts/ContactUs.aspx?Id=14

You're not going to get an argument in favor of factory farming from me, though.

Whew. Good!

It's a pedantic observation that we are de-optimizing the production of human-fuel in favor of machine-fuel.

Crap -so close. LOL I agree 100% that it would be if it were, but it's not. Clear as mud? :lol:

Reading up on Sorghum, it seems it's pretty much a normal crop requiring arable land with the exception that it's compatible with zero tillage. For non-irrigated lands yield is reduced just like almost anything else.

Yes - in the areas of Texas in which it's grown, it's not irrigated and it's much better than the cotton that's also grown in the region. There are two distinct plants, though - I don't think that sweet sorghum is used for animal feed as the sugars are just as bad for ruminants as the sugars in corn. My friend in Minnesota that grows his own fuel plants an acre of sweet sorghum next to his soybeans - that acre provides all the fuel for his Prius to drive back and forth across the Iowa state line to/from the farm. It's not as much fun talking with him when he's half-way through a batch - the distiller's headache makes him cranky. :lol:

Raw milk contains organisms that our digestive system needs to maintain healthy functioning

Diphtheria is not a "poison," and I'm quite sure our digestive systems function perfectly well without it. This clearly isn't the thread to get any deeper into this discussion, so I propose we set this aside as something we will profoundly disagree on.
=Smidge=

:roll: Diptheria isn't a normal component of milk, either. This is waaaay off topic, though. I recommend this as a starting point: http://farmageddonmovie.com/ It's in torrent land if that suits you.


edit...added links