Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

[AndyH]

Re the current state of commercial production of advanced biofuels in the U.S.:

<snip>

So it seems that we still don't have any commercial-scale cellulosic refineries in the U.S. but Brazil hopes to have one next year, and (as always) lab scale developments look promising.

This not quite up to date, Guy. Commercial scale production is running in the US, though it's plenty young:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...cial-scale-cellulosic-ethanol-in-florida.html

There's also commercial scale cellulosic production in Italy and Denmark.

Italy: 20 million gallons per year
http://www.betarenewables.com/Crescentino.html

The world’s first commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant, in Crescentino Italy, started operations in Q4, 2012. Our PROESA® process allows it to deliver superior economics in converting non-food biomass to sugars for the production of bio-ethanol or bio-chemicals.

Denmark:
http://www.eia.gov/biofuels/workshop/pdf/paul_kamp.pdf
Inbicon's system in Denmark processes farm residue, energy crops, and bagasse and produces fuel ethanol, as well as biogas and lignin pellets that replace coal in power generation and provide process power, process steam, and excess electricity to the power grid.


There are a number of other refineries under construction in the US to use municipal solid waste, energy crops, and farm waste. In addition, there's a company in Illinois that's successfully converting waste gasses from industry to make chemicals and ethanol.
http://www.lanzatech.com/sites/default/files/imce_uploads/lanzatech-baosteel_release_dec_2012.pdf

ROSELLE, Illinois and Shanghai, China-LanzaTech, a producer of low-carbon fuels and
chemicals from waste gases, and Baosteel, a leading steel producer in China, have
announced the success of their 100,000 gallon per year (300 tons) pre-commercial plant
located at one of Baosteel’s steel mills outside Shanghai, China. This plant operates at
significantly larger scale than LanzaTech’s pilot facility and test results have shown that the
scaling of the technology has been successful.

http://www.lanzatech.com/

 

[GRA]

Re the current state of commercial production of advanced biofuels in the U.S.:

<snip>

So it seems that we still don't have any commercial-scale cellulosic refineries in the U.S. but Brazil hopes to have one next year, and (as always) lab scale developments look promising.

This not quite up to date, Guy. Commercial scale production is running in the US, though it's plenty young:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...cial-scale-cellulosic-ethanol-in-florida.html

Thanks. Found this:

http://www.ecoseed.org/renewables/bioenergy/ethanol/16857-first-commercial-scale-bioethanol-facility-in-the-united-states-operating-in-florida" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So it looks like August 5th was the official start of production, but they expect to spend the rest of the year ramping up to full capacity. Only 8 million gal. annually, which is pretty small so baby steps, but you have to start somewhere. By comparison, in 2010, there were 149 U.S. refineries producing an average of 1.8 billion gallons/year/refinery, so we've got a ways to go.

There's also commercial scale cellulosic production in Italy and Denmark.

Italy: 20 million gallons per year
http://www.betarenewables.com/Crescentino.html

The world’s first commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant, in Crescentino Italy, started operations in Q4, 2012. Our PROESA® process allows it to deliver superior economics in converting non-food biomass to sugars for the production of bio-ethanol or bio-chemicals.

Denmark:
http://www.eia.gov/biofuels/workshop/pdf/paul_kamp.pdf
Inbicon's system in Denmark processes farm residue, energy crops, and bagasse and produces fuel ethanol, as well as biogas and lignin pellets that replace coal in power generation and provide process power, process steam, and excess electricity to the power grid.


There are a number of other refineries under construction in the US to use municipal solid waste, energy crops, and farm waste. In addition, there's a company in Illinois that's successfully converting waste gasses from industry to make chemicals and ethanol.
http://www.lanzatech.com/sites/default/files/imce_uploads/lanzatech-baosteel_release_dec_2012.pdf

ROSELLE, Illinois and Shanghai, China-LanzaTech, a producer of low-carbon fuels and
chemicals from waste gases, and Baosteel, a leading steel producer in China, have
announced the success of their 100,000 gallon per year (300 tons) pre-commercial plant
located at one of Baosteel’s steel mills outside Shanghai, China. This plant operates at
significantly larger scale than LanzaTech’s pilot facility and test results have shown that the
scaling of the technology has been successful.

http://www.lanzatech.com/

Any info on prices? I didn't see any, just general statements.

 

[AndyH]

...So it looks like August 5th was the official start of production, but they expect to spend the rest of the year ramping up to full capacity. Only 8 million gal. annually, which is pretty small so baby steps, but you have to start somewhere. By comparison, in 2010, there were 149 U.S. refineries producing an average of 1.8 billion gallons/year/refinery, so we've got a ways to go.

Right - it's been moving very slowly. Earlier this year I saw reports that biofuel producers in the US are contracting with land owners. The Florida plant uses yard waste as an input, so projects like that will need a reliable way to get everyone's grass clippings.

I don't agree that biofuels need to have as much production as fossil fuel plants as nobody's looking for a complete replacement. Our gasoline use is down and continuing to drop. We desperately need widespread electrification and that'll take a chunk out of fuel demand as well. A blend of ethanol, biodiesel, and dino-diesel works great in diesel engines, and AGE85 has been used for years in general aviation aircraft, though that progress is on hold awaiting an ASTM spec for the first non-military aviation fuel spec in our history.

Any info on prices? I didn't see any, just general statements.

I don't care. When we stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry I'll be concerned about cellulosic ethanol prices.

I know that small-scale 'conventional' (sugar/starch) ethanol can be made for about $1/gallon with no subsidies. Using waste products and taking the subsidies means one can make money for each gallon produced.

edit...

"...make money for each gallon..." This is a horrible attempt at communication. What I intended here was not to suggest that a producer could make a 'profit' from each gallon sold, because when one can make fuel for $1/gal and sell it for more, there's automatically profit there. A more accurate message is that it's possible to make fuel for less than the subsidies and credits per gallon - there can be profit from just the subsidies and incentives before selling the fuel - especially if one sells the 'spent mash' as either a feed supplement or fertilizer.


Additionally, here's one source of market price info for ethanol. Seems that fuel ranges between $1.418 and $2.018 per gallon.
http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/ethanol/cbot-ethanol_quotes_globex.html
/edit

Here's the only price info I can find tonite:
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/03/12/cellulosic-ethanol-to-be-cost-competitive-by-2016/

Cellulosic ethanol cost 94 cents a liter to produce in 2012, about 40 percent more than ethanol made from corn, BNEF said. That price gap will close by 2016, surveyed cellulosic ethanol producers predicted.

Globally, there are 14 enzymatic hydrolysis pilots, nine demonstration-stage projects and 10 semi-commercial scale plants either announced, commissioned or due online shortly, according to the survey. Five of the semi-commercial plants are in the US and more are expected to open in Brazil in the near future, BNEF said. A semi-commercial facility with a capacity of 90 million liters per year requires an initial capital outlay of about $290 million.

By 2016, when second- and third-generation plants with capacities between 90m and 125m liters will be commissioned, initial capital costs per installed liter are expected to fall from $3 to $2 due to economies of scale and a reduction in over-engineering, BNEF said.

I know that a lot of progress has been made in the past 3 years on enzymes and yeasts for both types of production, so I expect the price of cellulosic will continue to fall.

I really like what Inbicon's been doing and look forward to seeing how their 2nd generation processing works. Now that we have commercially viable yeasts that can process C5 sugars, the return for cellulosic processing rises significantly.

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/10032/taking-inbicon-to-the-next-level

Version 2.0 offers fermentation of both C5 and C6 sugars, with up to 50 percent higher ethanol yield than version 1.0. The up-to-30 MMgy facility can be built as a greenfield ethanol plant or co-located with an existing grain-ethanol plants, allowing producers to take advantage of crop residue available in that area. The configuration also works for sugarcane-ethanol plants with bagasse as the feedstock. Because all sugars are fermented, producers won’t have access to the C5 sugar stream as a coproduct. Instead, the facility will produce vinasse, which can be used as fertilizer.

http://www.inbicon.com/About_inbicon/News/Data/Pages/InbiconPilotPlantupandrunninginMalaysia.aspx

But any talk of fuel ethanol comes back to the active disinformation campaigns. Not one of our better exports...

Frankly, the process has taken longer than hoped, Kamp says. “We expected in 2012, or maybe in 2011, or maybe even 2010, we would have some more things to announce,” he says. “But nobody could foresee the onslaught that has come forth from API (American Petroleum Industry) to create uncertainty in the investment in biofuels.” The 100-year drought in 2012 was another factor.

 

[RegGuheert]

I know you believe that, but the fact is that in the past ten years, while the atmospheric CO2 level has steadily risen, the global temperature has been completely flat.

You might want to consider that this planet is about 70% water and that focusing only on "the global temperature" (actually, it's only the air temperature over land that you're talking about here) is a problem.

No, I'm not talking about the air temperature over land. I'm talking about the air temperature over the entire planet. That is what the UAH measurements consider. Here's a link to a plot of the full set of UAH temperature data: Watts Up With That? - UAH Global Temperature for August - virtually unchanged from July.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.or...xamines-key-point-global-includes-oceans-too/

They don’t call it “land-surface warming,” and they don’t call it “oceans-only warming.”
It’s called “global warming” for a reason, and one of the principal reasons is that climate change takes into account not only the approximately 29 percent of the Earth’s surface that consists of land, our continents, but also the 71 percent comprised of oceans.

And here is someone who agrees with that sentiment: Bob Tisdale. In fact, he feels that the oceans are THE key to understanding warming on our planet. He has developed an interesting theory of how the excess heat enters our climate and is distributed. His most coherent discussion of that is found in a presentation located on this page. (It's 42 MB, so I didn't link it directly, but I recommend anyone interested in this topic take a close look.)

Briefly, the key features of his thesis are as follows:
- El Nino events take the warm water stored deep in the tropical Western Pacific ocean and move some of it to the surface of the Eastern Pacific, where it can exchange its heat into the atmosphere and thus warm the planet.
- La Nina returns the warm waters from the surface of the Eastern Pacific to deep in the tropical Western Pacific, but in doing so, they also create a very cloudless condition over much of the Pacific Ocean, which allows the shortwave sunlight (which penetrates the deepest) to heat the water just before it is moved into greater depths.
- The amount of energy dispersed from an El Nino event and the following La Nina events are not coupled. They are similar to discharging and recharging a battery and chaotic elements control the amount of heat lost and added to the tropical Western Pacific.
- Two significant La Nina events account for most of the additional heating of our planet in the last 50 years: 1973/1974/1975/1976 and 1995/1996. These events are not seen as surface temperature increases, but rather as massive increases of heat in the Pacific Ocean.
- Several significant El Nino events have taken the heat that La Nina deposits into the Pacific Ocean and distributes it to the surface, causing steps up in global temperature. The biggest of these was the El Nino event of 1997/1998, which raised the global temperature approximately 0.19K.
- Periods when there are no El Ninos (and therefore no La Ninas) experience gradual cooling of the Earth.
- There is a well-documented Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation which affects temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean. The mechanism behind this oscillation is not well-understood, but the temperature oscillation is real. Over the next few years, this oscillation should reach its peak before beginning to move in the opposite direction.
- Manmade greenhouse gases have little to do with the current warming trend.

I thought some here might be interested to read a coherent theory about how the heat gets into and out of the oceans.

 

[AndyH]

I know you believe that, but the fact is that in the past ten years, while the atmospheric CO2 level has steadily risen, the global temperature has been completely flat.

You might want to consider that this planet is about 70% water and that focusing only on "the global temperature" (actually, it's only the air temperature over land that you're talking about here) is a problem.

No, I'm not talking about the air temperature over land. I'm talking about the air temperature over the entire planet. That is what the UAH measurements consider. Here's a link to a plot of the full set of UAH temperature data:

No. The UAH data are derived from satellites observing the atmosphere from the top down - the satellites do not measure the surface or low atmosphere directly. Your dubious source cherry-picked a source and then misrepresened it to present their desired message. How do we know? Because we have thermometers all over the planet, and dip some of those into the oceans to collect both shallow and deep temperature measurements. We know that the temperature's rising and know it's because more energy is being retained by our atmosphere. To add insult to injury, the UAH dataset and how it's been used was co-created by Roy Spencer - one of the denial industry's finest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

Congratulations, Reg - you've fallen for the Koch-funded disinformation and have missed the facts. Sorry for your loss.

This is what I mean, Reg, when I say that bad information is worse than no information. Anyone that's ever managed a database or worked intelligence or debugged computer code or performed thousands of other jobs that require accuracy can confirm that. That's exactly the opening the denial industry used to start feeding us disinformation. While science has been working in their labs, writing papers, and getting them published in places most people will never see much less read, the denial industry and their pawns like Watts and Muller and Pimental and many others have been waging their information war in the media - they brought the fight straight to us.

I understand - I've been foisted by it as well. It's not a fun time when one finally realizes that they've been a stooge, that they've allowed themselves to be manipulated and for a time they've been a mouthpiece for the psychological operations team. But it is fixable.

If you truly want information on the climate, go to climatologists. Not actors that read the weather and not bloggers on the payroll of those that benefit financially by denial. But first, learn the most commonly used lies so you can recognize them for what they are.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, by popularity, in a print-friendly version, with short URLs or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/the-new-ipcc-climate-report/

 

[GRA]

...So it looks like August 5th was the official start of production, but they expect to spend the rest of the year ramping up to full capacity. Only 8 million gal. annually, which is pretty small so baby steps, but you have to start somewhere. By comparison, in 2010, there were 149 U.S. refineries producing an average of 1.8 billion gallons/year/refinery, so we've got a ways to go.

Right - it's been moving very slowly. Earlier this year I saw reports that biofuel producers in the US are contracting with land owners. The Florida plant uses yard waste as an input, so projects like that will need a reliable way to get everyone's grass clippings.

I don't agree that biofuels need to have as much production as fossil fuel plants as nobody's looking for a complete replacement. Our gasoline use is down and continuing to drop. We desperately need widespread electrification and that'll take a chunk out of fuel demand as well. A blend of ethanol, biodiesel, and dino-diesel works great in diesel engines, and AGE85 has been used for years in general aviation aircraft, though that progress is on hold awaiting an ASTM spec for the first non-military aviation fuel spec in our history.

I agree with you that we don't need to replace all of the gas; my comment re scale was to do with the relative size of the individual refineries: an average of 1.8 billion gal./yr for the average oil refinery versus 8 million gal/yr. for this pilot plant (or 20 million gal./yr. for the one in Italy) is a ratio of between 225:1 and 90:1, so considerable scale up will be needed even assuming that biofuel refineries can be built economically to serve local needs only, and thus be individually smaller.

Personally, I think we should concentrate on using biofuels to take over aviation fuel requirements first, where using anything other than a high-density liquid fuel really isn't a viable option. Most bang for the buck.

Any info on prices? I didn't see any, just general statements.

I don't care. When we stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry I'll be concerned about cellulosic ethanol prices.

I know that small-scale 'conventional' (sugar/starch) ethanol can be made for about $1/gallon with no subsidies. Using waste products and taking the subsidies means one can make money for each gallon produced.

Here's the only price info I can find tonite:
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/03/12/cellulosic-ethanol-to-be-cost-competitive-by-2016/

Cellulosic ethanol cost 94 cents a liter to produce in 2012, about 40 percent more than ethanol made from corn, BNEF said. That price gap will close by 2016, surveyed cellulosic ethanol producers predicted.

Thanks. $0.94/L works out to $3.56/USG just for production, so it can't compete in the U.S. at that cost right now barring a mandate. Let's hope the 2016 timeline doesn't slip.

<snip much>

I'll look at the links when I've got time after the weekend. Although I agree that we should work out a mechanism to show the true costs of petroleum, ultimately whether and how fast biofuels are adopted will come down to price (and availability) barring a total drying up of alternatives, so I don't believe we can be cavalier about costs.

 

[AndyH]

...So it looks like August 5th was the official start of production, but they expect to spend the rest of the year ramping up to full capacity. Only 8 million gal. annually, which is pretty small so baby steps, but you have to start somewhere. By comparison, in 2010, there were 149 U.S. refineries producing an average of 1.8 billion gallons/year/refinery, so we've got a ways to go.

Right - it's been moving very slowly. Earlier this year I saw reports that biofuel producers in the US are contracting with land owners. The Florida plant uses yard waste as an input, so projects like that will need a reliable way to get everyone's grass clippings.

I don't agree that biofuels need to have as much production as fossil fuel plants as nobody's looking for a complete replacement. Our gasoline use is down and continuing to drop. We desperately need widespread electrification and that'll take a chunk out of fuel demand as well. A blend of ethanol, biodiesel, and dino-diesel works great in diesel engines, and AGE85 has been used for years in general aviation aircraft, though that progress is on hold awaiting an ASTM spec for the first non-military aviation fuel spec in our history.

I agree with you that we don't need to replace all of the gas; my comment re scale was to do with the relative size of the individual refineries: an average of 1.8 billion gal./yr for the average oil refinery versus 8 million gal/yr. for this pilot plant (or 20 million gal./yr. for the one in Italy) is a ratio of between 225:1 and 90:1, so considerable scale up will be needed even assuming that biofuel refineries can be built economically to serve local needs only, and thus be individually smaller.

I'm confused - you agree we don't have to replace all the gas (thus we don't have to compare refinery size) yet the point out refinery size again. :shock:

Estimates from people I trust suggest we can easily double our non-cellulosic production and thus replace 20% of our current gasoline needs. Moving beyond 20% is where cellulosic production must 'hit the ground running.' It appears in spite of the massive amount of push-back from the oil industry that cellulosic production is finally getting at least a fingernail hold in the US. As you said - baby steps. But the slow speed isn't because of a lack of technology or the ability to scale - it's because of the active disinformation from the API and others. The 'pure gasoline' movement is just another astroturf effort.

Personally, I think we should concentrate on using biofuels to take over aviation fuel requirements first, where using anything other than a high-density liquid fuel really isn't a viable option. Most bang for the buck.

More bang for the buck, especially for jetfuel. But I don't agree that it should be an either/or process as they're different fuels. Ethanol works well in diesel engines - and the efficiency is higher than diesel fuel.

Any info on prices? I didn't see any, just general statements.

I don't care. When we stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry I'll be concerned about cellulosic ethanol prices.

I know that small-scale 'conventional' (sugar/starch) ethanol can be made for about $1/gallon with no subsidies. Using waste products and taking the subsidies means one can make money for each gallon produced.

Here's the only price info I can find tonite:
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/03/12/cellulosic-ethanol-to-be-cost-competitive-by-2016/

Cellulosic ethanol cost 94 cents a liter to produce in 2012, about 40 percent more than ethanol made from corn, BNEF said. That price gap will close by 2016, surveyed cellulosic ethanol producers predicted.

Thanks. $0.94/L works out to $3.56/USG just for production, so it can't compete in the U.S. at that cost right now barring a mandate. Let's hope the 2016 timeline doesn't slip.

<snip much>

I'll look at the links when I've got time after the weekend. Although I agree that we should work out a mechanism to show the true costs of petroleum, ultimately whether and how fast biofuels are adopted will come down to price (and availability) barring a total drying up of alternatives, so I don't believe we can be cavalier about costs.

We have mandates and tax incentives and production tax credits so cellulosic is cheaper than gasoline now. Besides, those 2012 numbers were from producer surveys - I think they're retail, not wholesale. edit... Sorry, looks like this is incorrect - the prices are listed as 'cost to produce' not necessarily wholesale and not likely to be retail. /edit

One point about refinery size. I think we should not think about ethanol in terms of centralized petroleum refining. Centralized refining is a 'cheap oil' creation that uses a ton of energy to bring raw materials in and distribute finished products across the country. Consider instead devices such as this:
http://www.allardresearch.com/systems.html

The commercial-scale modular refineries provide a complete set of modules to process feedstock, distill ethanol, and provide environmentally friendly operation through water cleansing systems after distillation.

A standardized 'refinery in a box' can be installed near a source of fermentable material. Whey left over from cheese production is about 6% sugars - every cheese plant in the country can be producing fuel. Every beer producer in the country has hundreds of gallons of waste beer left over from bottling/kegging. Make fuel. Farmers, community processing, fuel co-op - make it and use it locally. It's cheaper, faster, more responsive to local needs, easier to permit and license, and the expense and emissions from long-haul transportation are gone.

Bigger is not necessarily better, especially in a carbon-constrained world.

 

[RegGuheert]

No. The UAH data are derived from satellites observing the atmosphere from the top down - the satellites do not measure the surface or low atmosphere directly. Your dubious source cherry-picked a source and then misrepresened it to present their desired message.

That's hilarious, Andy. UAH is one of the organizations funded to do climate research in the US. And their data is global, not just land data, as you had previously claimed. What's even funnier is that the data you presented also has the exact same level period as the UAH data. Guess what, they all do, since the global temperatures have not risen in over ten years!

Yet you have a bit of trouble acknowledging that fact. It's simply disingenuous.

One of the comments about today's latest emission from for IPCC characterized it best:

SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.

It would be funny if this crap science weren't being used to take away more and more rights from people. As the temperatures roll back down in a couple of years just as many find they can no longer afford to pay for energy due to the new policies, those responsible for this charade should be held responsible for their felonious acts.

It's too bad so many go along with what passes as science today.

 

[sparky]

I'm just going to dip a toe in here to comment on some of the climate rhetoric.
It's good to debate these things in public and both sides have scored a couple of points IMO.
I realize that it's poor debate form to come off as squishy on whichever side you've taken. But, some of what I read here (and elsewhere) seems beyond "spirited" and veering towards hubris.

I don't know that we're on a collision course with depleted ecosystems and inundated coastlines.
I'm not a climate scientist. I do work somewhat in the field of climate and weather; have instruments in space making some key measurements, work with climate scientists to figure out what the data represents and have even co-authored papers with a Nobel winner in this rapidly expanding area of climate science data collection and model formulation. Many conferences, so I do have beers with a lot of these folks.
Knowing these folks and hearing their concerns and views gives me confidence in much of the very very hard work performed by those that work to produce the IPCC reports in a very politically charged environment.

It is definitely not "crap" science Reg. It's constantly reviewed and critiqued by others in the field. Alternative views, backed up with data are certainly allowed/encouraged. These guys stand up and defend their positions in rooms full of other scientists skeptical of "proof". And because the science is real, not crap, errors will be found, vetted and corrections made and reported. The topic has become so politically charged and the requirements for perfection so strong it's a wonder that many keep at it.

AndyH, there is uncertainty in the community about various things. We all have to allow that some of what is taken as gospel now will be overturned. This is especially true when it comes to models and forecasts. The level of cocksureness is much higher here than in meetings I attend. I take comfort in that. One quick example; there's a big gap (40W/m^2 IIRC) in the remote sensing data for heat transfer in/out of the surface. That diminishes the accuracy and sensitivity of the models used to tell us something of the strength and direction of the forcing function and ultimately what some models can tell us about the future.

Today I listened to a talk by a well respected climate scientist who was postulating that these "quiet periods" or "cooling trends" in the decades long temperature profiles might be indicative of some restoring force to the climate that we haven't got a handle on. There's been several in the climate record going back 500 years where the forcing function was strong one way or another but the temp swing, less so. He allowed that something like cloud creation, or cloud top height, as an entropy modulator which changes the radiative transfer could be at work as negative feedback. It's speculation from a scientist and non-denier who is rightly looking at where the data and the models don't fit and trying to come up with a hypothesis for the larger condition as opposed to looking at molecular levels of a gas molecule and extrapolating from there. I'm not trying to "deny" anything nor identify a smoking gun, just providing an example of what the real scientists who are also very worried about climate implications for their grandchildren think about when they don't constantly have to be cage-fighting with dilettantes in the media.

They're not cocksure. But they are dedicated and vigilant and need some emotional distance I think to do their job. The hysteria in both directions probably doesn't produce better science. I don't know what the climate is doing. But I'm willing to go along with the recommendations of those who have spent their life making the measurements and working out the science on this, the only habitable planet we know of. It seems reckless to do otherwise.

/soapbox

 

[AndyH]

AndyH, there is uncertainty in the community about various things. We all have to allow that some of what is taken as gospel now will be overturned. This is especially true when it comes to models and forecasts. The level of cocksureness is much higher here than in meetings I attend. I take comfort in that. One quick example; there's a big gap (40W/m^2 IIRC) in the remote sensing data for heat transfer in/out of the surface. That diminishes the accuracy and sensitivity of the models used to tell us something of the strength and direction of the forcing function and ultimately what some models can tell us about the future.

I appreciate your points a great deal. I've been involved in a different type of information production and I think I can grok at least parts of your world. I want to make something clear, however. What you apparently took as 'cocksureness' was an intentional push-back against someone that has a long history of promoting a position best labeled as 'spawn of the denial industry' and not anything remotely connected to science - with or without error bars. Initial conversations were civil. Then slightly stressed. And now, I refuse to suffer anyone that spreads misinformation and quote Watts for 'proof'. No More. Ever.

I understand that there are error bars and weasel words. I understand that we do not yet know a fair amount of how some things work or how long it might take the planet's systems to adjust to nearly 400ppm of atmospheric CO2 with or without associated feedbacks. And I'll confirm that I don't understand much more than I do. But what I will accept completely is that we have known since at least 1860 what CO2 does, and we know well enough how much carbon our systems have expelled. We simply do NOT need to know to the tenth of a second exactly when sea level will inundate central Miami to see that the water's rising, just as we do not need to quibble over 1/100 of a degree to see that we're losing ice and fresh water on a planetary scale. We don't need remote sensing, multispectral imagery, new satellites, or better models to tell us that we've got a problem and that maybe the 1950s would have been a good time to stop digging this hole.

Science is never finished. May you keep flying and keep meeting and keep refining what we know, and overturning and refining those things that need another coat of polish.

But in the world of drought, mass extinction, a lack of water, and yet another round of fires and floods, the time for gentlemanly discussions over a glass of port and cigar are long past. And yes, I think that anyone that is spreading anti-science FUD to slow the protection of this planet should be rounded up and dumped into a Turkish prison. :evil:

 

[AndyH]

<snip> It's too bad so many go along with what passes as science today.

Reg - if I felt that Watts or Tisdale or any others in the denialist world were worth any braincells I'd read them directly. They're not scientists, certainly not climatologists, and the sputum you appear to worship is not in any way science. Maybe one day they'll subject their thoughts to peer review, but I think we both know THAT won't happen...

You're pretty good at using techniques like the old 'when did you stop beating your wife'? trick with regards to twisting what I say and pushing it back in my face. I'm not interested! You've shown that you can't see truth through what appear to be your politically- and denialist-twisted view and that's fine - you're free to live as and believe what you will. But I too have the right to associate with people interested in leaving this place better than they found it.

And Reg - in my opinion that's not you. Too bad but good bye. Welcome to the ignore list.

 

[AndyH]

Here's a look at the composition of gasoline in 1987:

https://info.ngwa.org/GWOL/pdf/901155372.PDF

It's a serious chemical stew.

 

[GRA]

<snip>
I don't agree that biofuels need to have as much production as fossil fuel plants as nobody's looking for a complete replacement. Our gasoline use is down and continuing to drop. We desperately need widespread electrification and that'll take a chunk out of fuel demand as well. A blend of ethanol, biodiesel, and dino-diesel works great in diesel engines, and AGE85 has been used for years in general aviation aircraft, though that progress is on hold awaiting an ASTM spec for the first non-military aviation fuel spec in our history.

I agree with you that we don't need to replace all of the gas; my comment re scale was to do with the relative size of the individual refineries: an average of 1.8 billion gal./yr for the average oil refinery versus 8 million gal/yr. for this pilot plant (or 20 million gal./yr. for the one in Italy) is a ratio of between 225:1 and 90:1, so considerable scale up will be needed even assuming that biofuel refineries can be built economically to serve local needs only, and thus be individually smaller.

I'm confused - you agree we don't have to replace all the gas (thus we don't have to compare refinery size) yet the point out refinery size again. :shock:

See well below.

Personally, I think we should concentrate on using biofuels to take over aviation fuel requirements first, where using anything other than a high-density liquid fuel really isn't a viable option. Most bang for the buck.

More bang for the buck, especially for jetfuel. But I don't agree that it should be an either/or process as they're different fuels. Ethanol works well in diesel engines - and the efficiency is higher than diesel fuel.

I expect we'll see a fair amount of diesel fuel-powered transportation move to LNG in the short/medium term (e.g. see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303342104579097271690917490.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ), so I consider aviation fuel the most critical to replace. We may ultimately wind up using H2 fuel cells or what have you for long-haul trucking/marine use, depending how costs work out, how much of the grid is intermittent renewables, cost of storage etc. It's impossible now to say which clean tech will be the ultimate winner in each area.

Thanks. $0.94/L works out to $3.56/USG just for production, so it can't compete in the U.S. at that cost right now barring a mandate. Let's hope the 2016 timeline doesn't slip.

<snip much>

I'll look at the links when I've got time after the weekend. Although I agree that we should work out a mechanism to show the true costs of petroleum, ultimately whether and how fast biofuels are adopted will come down to price (and availability) barring a total drying up of alternatives, so I don't believe we can be cavalier about costs.

We have mandates and tax incentives and production tax credits so cellulosic is cheaper than gasoline now.

Sure we've got mandates, incentives and credits, but those can be removed or changed at any time depending on the political winds, so I don't count on them.

Besides, those 2012 numbers were from producer surveys - I think they're retail, not wholesale. edit... Sorry, looks like this is incorrect - the prices are listed as 'cost to produce' not necessarily wholesale and not likely to be retail. /edit

Right, which is to say they don't include marketing, distribution, overhead, profit and possibly not depreciation/amortization of the retailer either. And it's not clear if by "production cost" those are included or not for the producer.

One point about refinery size. I think we should not think about ethanol in terms of centralized petroleum refining. Centralized refining is a 'cheap oil' creation that uses a ton of energy to bring raw materials in and distribute finished products across the country. <snip>

Here's my answer to the confusion you expressed at the top of the post. This was the point I was making in my previous post, albeit indirectly, so my apologies for not spelling it out. I wrote

"I agree with you that we don't need to replace all of the gas; my comment re scale was to do with the relative size of the individual refineries: an average of 1.8 billion gal./yr for the average oil refinery versus 8 million gal/yr. for this pilot plant (or 20 million gal./yr. for the one in Italy) is a ratio of between 225:1 and 90:1, so considerable scale up will be needed even assuming that biofuel refineries can be built economically to serve local needs only, and thus be individually smaller."

We've previously discussed how much economies of scale will matter for biofuel refining and we differ on what we believe the maximum economic radius (considering energy costs) to transport feedstock to a biofuel refinery is, currently or in future, and how big a bio-refinery can or should be, so we don't need to rehash that as we know we disagree.

 

[AndyH]

Here's my answer to the confusion you expressed at the top of the post. This was the point I was making in my previous post, albeit indirectly, so my apologies for not spelling it out. I wrote

"I agree with you that we don't need to replace all of the gas; my comment re scale was to do with the relative size of the individual refineries: an average of 1.8 billion gal./yr for the average oil refinery versus 8 million gal/yr. for this pilot plant (or 20 million gal./yr. for the one in Italy) is a ratio of between 225:1 and 90:1, so considerable scale up will be needed even assuming that biofuel refineries can be built economically to serve local needs only, and thus be individually smaller."

We've previously discussed how much economies of scale will matter for biofuel refining and we differ on what we believe the maximum economic radius (considering energy costs) to transport feedstock to a biofuel refinery is, currently or in future, and how big a bio-refinery can or should be, so we don't need to rehash that as we know we disagree.

I appreciate the view, Guy, but it seems to me that I keep failing to communicate this in a way that allows you to see it from another direction.

You seem to be saying it's important for ethanol refineries to scale and it appears 'scale' means output volume per plant to better compare with traditional refining ("size matters"). If one removes cheap petroleum, then traditional centralized refining makes as little sense as returning to mainframe computers or dumping roof-top PV. I'm thinking about the problem from the point of a future world where we're not wasting any fossil fuels in ICEs, or at least only in maybe 20% of today's. I'm talking about many thousand small, standardized refineries located near fermentable materials and consumers.

Here are two examples of 'very local' commercial processors. Allard Energy has an 'ethanol processor in a box' and since 2010 they've supplied a cellulosic front-end unit. A homeowner puts grass clippings, cardboard, and junk mail in and gets fuel. Ditto for the EFuel100, though this is a more consumer-friendly unit.

http://allardresearch.com/index.html
http://www.microfueler.com/

I guess it a moot point anyway, as hopefully in that not too distant future place it will still be more efficient to make electricity for transportation rather than ethanol.

 

[GRA]

Here's my answer to the confusion you expressed at the top of the post. This was the point I was making in my previous post, albeit indirectly, so my apologies for not spelling it out. I wrote

"I agree with you that we don't need to replace all of the gas; my comment re scale was to do with the relative size of the individual refineries: an average of 1.8 billion gal./yr for the average oil refinery versus 8 million gal/yr. for this pilot plant (or 20 million gal./yr. for the one in Italy) is a ratio of between 225:1 and 90:1, so considerable scale up will be needed even assuming that biofuel refineries can be built economically to serve local needs only, and thus be individually smaller."

We've previously discussed how much economies of scale will matter for biofuel refining and we differ on what we believe the maximum economic radius (considering energy costs) to transport feedstock to a biofuel refinery is, currently or in future, and how big a bio-refinery can or should be, so we don't need to rehash that as we know we disagree.

I appreciate the view, Guy, but it seems to me that I keep failing to communicate this in a way that allows you to see it from another direction.

You seem to be saying it's important for ethanol refineries to scale and it appears 'scale' means output volume per plant to better compare with traditional refining ("size matters"). If one removes cheap petroleum, then traditional centralized refining makes as little sense as returning to mainframe computers or dumping roof-top PV. I'm thinking about the problem from the point of a future world where we're not wasting any fossil fuels in ICEs, or at least only in maybe 20% of today's. I'm talking about many thousand small, standardized refineries located near fermentable materials and consumers.

Here are two examples of 'very local' commercial processors. Allard Energy has an 'ethanol processor in a box' and since 2010 they've supplied a cellulosic front-end unit. A homeowner puts grass clippings, cardboard, and junk mail in and gets fuel. Ditto for the EFuel100, though this is a more consumer-friendly unit.

http://allardresearch.com/index.html
http://www.microfueler.com/

I guess it a moot point anyway, as hopefully in that not too distant future place it will still be more efficient to make electricity for transportation rather than ethanol.

Andy, I'd posted a longer reply to this and it seems to have disappeared. In short, you communicate fine, we just disagree on what scale will be cost-effective and where, and I don't see any value in rehashing the whys and wherefores again.

 

[AndyH]

Andy, I'd posted a longer reply to this and it seems to have disappeared. In short, you communicate fine, we just disagree on what scale will be cost-effective and where, and I don't see any value in rehashing the whys and wherefores again.

Guy, something just 'clicked' for me that I think will help here. We seem to be disconnecting on at least scalability.

I'm not looking at the problem from a 'traditional' centralized production/distribution perspective - I'm looking at it from a bottom-up decentralized perspective. The best analogy bouncing between my ears at the moment is that of distributed solar and wind generation VS. centralized power generation.

The ability to produce liquid fuel locally with nearly free raw materials has the same potential to put 'big oil' out of business as rooftop PV threatens old-school power generation, and the way the distributed nature of the internet is changing the music and news industries. And the way 3D printing is making traditional manufacturing redundant.

Scalability is an artifact of the old way - leave it for the archaeologists.

Happy Saturday!

 

[TimLee]

The ability to produce liquid fuel locally with nearly free raw materials has the same potential to put 'big oil' out of business as rooftop PV threatens old-school power generation, and the way the distributed nature of the internet is changing the music and news industries. And the way 3D printing is making traditional manufacturing redundant.

Scalability is an artifact of the old way - leave it for the archaeologists.

Decentralized small scale production is a disruptive change, and it has impacted many things.
You have a valid point that small scale decentralized ethanol production might expand faster and overall production might achieve significant impacts sooner than most people anticipate.
Maybe, time will tell.
But to claim that "3D printing is making traditional manufacturing redundant" is totally over the top ridiculous hyperbole.
3D printing is a wonderful emerging technology, and it is making significant impacts on prototyping, and may eventually make production of replacement parts more cost effective than it currently is with traditional manufacturing which requires volume production to be cost effective.
But 3D printing is likely to need at least two or three decades of extensive research and development before there is any possibility of it "making traditional manufacturing redundant".

 

[AndyH]

The ability to produce liquid fuel locally with nearly free raw materials has the same potential to put 'big oil' out of business as rooftop PV threatens old-school power generation, and the way the distributed nature of the internet is changing the music and news industries. And the way 3D printing is making traditional manufacturing redundant.

Scalability is an artifact of the old way - leave it for the archaeologists.

Decentralized small scale production is a disruptive change, and it has impacted many things.
You have a valid point that small scale decentralized ethanol production might expand faster and overall production might achieve significant impacts sooner than most people anticipate.
Maybe, time will tell.
But to claim that "3D printing is making traditional manufacturing redundant" is totally over the top ridiculous hyperbole.
3D printing is a wonderful emerging technology, and it is making significant impacts on prototyping, and may eventually make production of replacement parts more cost effective than it currently is with traditional manufacturing which requires volume production to be cost effective.

I think you make a very important point here about traditional manufacturing. Why does it require volume production? Possibly because it's a subtractive process? Mine material, smelt, alloy, cast, machine, treat - and at the end we have a high-quality part but have left a lot of material on the floor. We've lost energy and material at every step. The new manufacturing is 'additive' and is much, much more efficient - and that removes the 'requirement' for volume production. Paradigm shift!

But 3D printing is likely to need at least two or three decades of extensive research and development before there is any possibility of it "making traditional manufacturing redundant".

I appreciate your thoughts, Tim, especially as I continue to expand my awareness. I don't know more than I know, that's for sure!

Prior to this weekend I would have agreed with your view of 3D printing 100%. But it appears this is yet another area where additional awareness changes things.

While there's plenty of room for this tech to expand, it doesn't require any more R&D for the things being made today - and that's important, I think!

Examples:

SpaceX - 3D printed cryogenic valve housing
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNqs_S-zEBY[/youtube]

Sand, rock, ice tea?!, chocolate!
http://solidsmack.com/fabrication/odd-3d-printing-materials/

Liquid metals for flexible electronics
http://www.webpronews.com/researchers-invent-liquid-metal-that-can-be-used-in-3d-printers-2013-07

Overview talk - Jeremy Rifkin on the 3rd Industrial Revolution...
http://www.worldfinancialreview.com/?p=1547

3D printing being used in hacker spaces and as part of neighborhood revitalization.
http://www.thepermaculturepodcast.com/2013/green-hacker-spaces-with-dr-wayne-dorband/
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013...inside-chicago-librarys-new-pop-up-maker-lab/

Beware of the power of exponential growth. Not long ago, if anyone said the internet would be putting newspapers and magazines out of business, or that e-commerce and file sharing would make much of the music industry redundant, or that we'd replace mainframe computers with desktops and then replace those with tablets and smartphones, or make centralized power generation redundant with distributed generation and storage, each of these industries would have also said that was "totally over the top ridiculous hyperbole" - and they'd keep repeating right into their graves.

 

[TimLee]

Beware of the power of exponential growth. Not long ago, if anyone said the internet would be putting newspapers and magazines out of business, or that e-commerce and file sharing would make much of the music industry redundant, or that we'd replace mainframe computers with desktops and then replace those with tablets and smartphones, or make centralized power generation redundant with distributed generation and storage, each of these industries would have also said that was "totally over the top ridiculous hyperbole" - and they'd keep repeating right into their graves.

Yes, I agree there is significant power of exponential growth.
Just look at the initial Bell Lab testing of the first transistor.
But I'm still skeptical of 3D printing replacing traditional low cost centralized manufacturing, at least any time soon.
It is possible, but not likely.
3D design and modeling, yes, it is having a huge impact.
3D printing, likely to be a much longer time frame.
They're not the same thing.

 

[AndyH]

Beware of the power of exponential growth. Not long ago, if anyone said the internet would be putting newspapers and magazines out of business, or that e-commerce and file sharing would make much of the music industry redundant, or that we'd replace mainframe computers with desktops and then replace those with tablets and smartphones, or make centralized power generation redundant with distributed generation and storage, each of these industries would have also said that was "totally over the top ridiculous hyperbole" - and they'd keep repeating right into their graves.

Yes, I agree there is significant power of exponential growth.
Just look at the initial Bell Lab testing of the first transistor.
But I'm still skeptical of 3D printing replacing traditional low cost centralized manufacturing, at least any time soon.
It is possible, but not likely.
3D design and modeling, yes, it is having a huge impact.
3D printing, likely to be a much longer time frame.
They're not the same thing.

Possibly our sticking points are with the definition of 'any time soon,' and the suggestion that the 3D printed objects aren't ...valid...somehow.

Seems to me that when people 3D print a case for a device instead of ordering one from a 'traditional' supplier, or when 3D printing is used to make a set of false teeth, or a lower receiver for an AR-15, that something's happening today rather than 20 years from now.

But yes, this is only the beginning. Industrial revolutions don't happen overnight, but we're certainly living during the twilight of one and the birth of its replacement.

Boeing Dreamliner: 30 3D printed parts...
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-06/future-flight-planes-will-be-printed

For now, those parts aren't critical aircraft components. For example, the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner includes 30 or so printed components—a record—but most of them are air ducts or hinges. That, too, could change. In November, NASA started printing parts to test for its next heavy-lift rocket. One company, DIYRockets, went even further: It launched a contest to develop an open-source, 3-D–printable rocket engine. Last fall, students at the University of Virginia printed almost all the components of an operational UAV, including the 6.5-foot wingspan, and flew it around an airfield.

Gun parts
http://www.engineering.com/3DPrinti...rst-Commercial-3D-Printed-Metal-Gun-Part.aspx
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...printed-semi-automatic-fires-over-600-rounds/

Dentistry...
http://www.stratasys.com/industries/dental

Microwave wave-guide to coax adaptor (Plenty of others on this site - from display hands for jewelry sales to pencil holders to drafting tools...)
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:161383/#instructions

Need a kidney?
http://gizmodo.com/scientists-can-now-3d-print-transplantable-living-kidn-1120783047