Page: 1 2 3 4 5
AgnesW
Head Administrator
Registered: 12-2008
Posts: 546
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The Fuels of Tomorrow? Costs and Emissions Cast Doubt
February 8, 2010
EPA Pulls Back Curtain on 2010 Cellulosic Biofuel Revision Decision
quote:
RFS2 initially required 100 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel in 2010, but last week EPA revised that requirement to 6.5 million ethanol-equivalent gallons.
"While we proposed that the cellulosic biofuel standard would be set at the EISA-specified level of 100 million gallons for 2010, based on analysis of information available at this time, we no longer believe the full volume can be met," the EPA document explained. "Since the proposal, we have had detailed discussions with over 30 companies that are in the business of developing cellulosic biofuels and cellulosic biofuel technology. Based on these discussions, we have found that many of the projects that served as the basis for the proposal have been put on hold, delayed, or scaled back.
As part of EPA's initial justification for maintaining the cellulosic biofuel mandate, in its 2009 proposal, the agency included a chart outlining 25 pilot and demonstration-level cellulosic ethanol plants currently operating in the U.S. However, according to EPA, only nine of those plants were reporting measurable volumes of ethanol production (and of those nine, the two largest -- by Verenium and Western Biomass Energy LLC -- each only had the capacity to produce 1.5 million gal/yr).
http://www.opisnet.com/rfs2final/headlines.html
|
|
2/9/2010, 5:23 pm
|
Link to this post
Blog
|
HOMBREDELATIERRA
Administrator
Registered: 12-2008
Posts: 121
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The Fuels of Tomorrow? Costs and Emissions Cast Doubt
quote:
quote:
The entry of oil companies into the realm of renewable energy could present major obstacles for the development of a sustainable economy that is not based on carbon resources, according to a report in the International Journal of Green Economics
".. could present..": no, I don't think so. It's been a problem since at least the 1970s, 4 decades. The SOBs would buy up emerging solar technology / patents and then sit on them. The same thing happened with electric cars. It has been claimed GM said "kaput!" to Hydro-Québec (provincial electrical utility) when they came up with an innovative "motor-wheel" for electric vehicles..
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=1994001917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_hub_motor
quote:
Weight savings
Eliminating mechanical transmission inc. gearboxes, differentials, drive shafts and axles provides a significant weight and manufacturing cost saving, while also decreasing the environmental impact of the product.
quote:
Energy efficiency
Energy efficiency is one of the biggest advantages of direct drive in-wheel motors. A conventional vehicle uses mechanical means to transmit power from a centrally mounted engine/motor to the wheels. With an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicle this mechanical transmission must have multiple gear ratios to compensate for an ICE having no usable power at engine speeds lower than about 1000 rpm. An electric motor mounted directly inside a wheel without any mechanical transmission will avoid all such losses.
According to the "GM conspiracy" theory Hydro-Québec could not buck the will of GM since they depend on GM subsidiaries for equipment. GOTCHA!
The motor wheel design won international prizes for technological innovation in 1995 yet paradoxically was mysteriously dropped amidst hints of a character assassination program directed against the inventor.
One smells a rat..
http://web.mac.com/pierrelanglois/PLanglois-PCA/Medias_files/Article%20GlobeAndMail2.pdf
Draw your own conclusions.. 
Last edited by HOMBREDELATIERRA, 2/10/2010, 1:26 pm
|
|
2/10/2010, 1:24 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to HOMBREDELATIERRA
Blog
|
AgnesW
Head Administrator
Registered: 12-2008
Posts: 546
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The Fuels of Tomorrow? Costs and Emissions Cast Doubt
My above post was the 2nd of 2 I posted yesterday. See post #1 (the last post on Pg 4)
We know the oil co's along with the auto mfgrs have withheld technology that could have improved fuel efficiency in many instances and we know they killed the electric car, not once but twice. GM has produced flexfuel vehicles in S America for years but still refused to do it in N America. They are now finally advertising that they have 13 models that are flex fuel. A drop in the bucket. Five will get you ten that as soon as the oil co's have control of the biofuel production, flex fuel vehicles will become dominent, thereby extending the use of fossil fuels into the forseeable future. GM bought out the most prominent electric battery producer and now you never hear about them anymore.
Once the oil co's have control of biofuel production the price will be manupliated just as OPEC manipulates oil prices.
Perhaps if the oil co's can control the biofuels industry they may stop persuing approval to drill off of the coasts and up in ANWR at some point but we will still be dependant on their teat.
Electric cars and monorails could help eliminate that dependance but it would take the support (moral and financial) of everyone to make that happen, Governments and citizens alike.
Unfortunately the citizens cant seem to get it through their thick heads that the loss of independants and the competition they provide will cost them dearly.
|
|
2/10/2010, 5:08 pm
|
Link to this post
Blog
|
HOMBREDELATIERRA
Administrator
Registered: 12-2008
Posts: 121
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The Fuels of Tomorrow? Costs and Emissions Cast Doubt
Well, I completely agree with your last post and its analysis. They want to maintain the Business as Usual model as long as they can. I don't think it will work. There are too many overlooked interactions and feedbacks in the system they don't take into consideration. Climate change will reduce the agricultural land available for biofuels. It will come down, literally, to SUVs for the bourgeosie of the West OR food for people everywhere (West, East, North, South).
I just finished Brian Fagan's The Great Warming (2008) on the climate science of the Medieval Optimum warming. Fagan believes that drought and water shortages plus flooding events constitute the "silent elephant" in the room that everyone chooses to ignore. He makes a strong case that civilizations rose and fell in Asia, Africa and the Americas as a result of global drought caused by the Medieval Optimum. The world will face massive water and food shortages as a result of GW, if his thesis is correct (and it is based on science, not speculation). There won't be land enough for food and fuel. I don't believe Business as Usual - even if green - is any longer possible. We waited too long to make the transition to a green economy. The "New Economy", as I call it, will be characterized by economic contraction, not Business as Usual (even if greened). Only time will tell who is right of course..
I decided to get involved with a local Transition Towns effort because of my beliefs on these matters.
Nor do I necessarily think things will always be worse after Peak Oil. It could be better..
|
|
2/10/2010, 5:45 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to HOMBREDELATIERRA
Blog
|
Wetdog
Registered user
Registered: 04-2009
Posts: 43
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The Fuels of Tomorrow? Costs and Emissions Cast Doubt
Agnes-----" I know what your saying is true Fred. In fact anyone who is interested in a/e is aware of all the options available to us. But I worry that too much emphasis is being put on alternative fuels to replace gasoline just so Americans can continue their love affair with the automobile. "------
What is wrong with that? We need to use American's love to automobiles to our advantage. It has been used against us for too long.
We need to show people that they don't give up anything to protect the environment except petroleum. Everything that is done with petroleum can also be done with biofuels(including methane)--they can do anything petroleum can cleaner, better and cost less.
|
|
6/6/2010, 12:31 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Wetdog
|
AgnesW
Head Administrator
Registered: 12-2008
Posts: 546
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The Fuels of Tomorrow? Costs and Emissions Cast Doubt
Hi Ya Fred,
I think the petroleum alternatives could be a partial problem solver if the proper ones are chosen. But I still stand my ground on the need for reduced consumption.
Using mass transit, electric vehicles, bikes, and walking in urban areas could reduce fuel demands. Buying locally produced food instead of shipping and trucking food products thousands of miles from their place of origin would also reduce fuel demand. These efforts could be easily attainable.
The alternative fuels produced could then be used for the most productive outcome such as delivering manufactured equipment, farming, etc. and even for the yearly motoring vacation that most families enjoy, although I personally would prefer to be able to take a train when traveling from Fl. to Baltimore or Michigan.
Something else that might interest you. The U S is currently exporting a large amount of the ethanol we produce. I learned about this just recently. It didnt suprise me since we are not manufacturing many flex fuel capable vehicles.
But perhaps this conversation will become moot as the economy shrinks ever more. Conservation will become necessary for survival.
Last edited by AgnesW, 6/6/2010, 10:33 pm
|
|
6/6/2010, 2:10 pm
|
Link to this post
Blog
|
HOMBREDELATIERRA
Administrator
Registered: 12-2008
Posts: 121
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: The Fuels of Tomorrow? Costs and Emissions Cast Doubt
Over the past 4 decades, we collectively performed an interesting "experiment" on our economy. Rather than "transition" out of a non-renewable economy back in the 70s - when we still had time and resources to "transition" with - we decided to hold a big party! Consume! Consume! Consume! Live today for tomorrow we die.. (Some renewables were developed in N. Europe especially..)
Now we live with the big Hangover: as a man sows, so shall he reap! - Jesus. It is now, of course, a bit late to think about "transitioning" to a green economy on the back of the inceasingly dysfunctional non-renewable one!
(If and) when the global economy recovers, rising demand - especially in the newly industrializing countries: India, China.. - will cause oil prices to spike. Follows another speculative bubble as traders play roulette with oil price futures and voilà! We're right back in the summer of 2008 when oil hit $147 / bl.. Peak Oil is the culprit of course: the cheap oil has all been pumped, only the more expensive stuff remains.
Oil price "volatility" not only stiffles the economy in general but also stiffles the "economy of transition" - the renewable energy sector - more particularly: investment requires stable market prospects. This is especially true for megaprojects with long "look ahead" periods required to recuperate initial massive infrastructure investments (example: natural gas liquification and transport facilities, biofuel factories and distribution systems in an auto market with regulated automobile fuel efficiency standards..)
Where we are today: the transition to the Post Peak Oil Econmomy ("The New Economy") is going to have to be done the hard way, cold turkey, with few replacement energies on line and running..
Interesting times.
See the publications of the Post Carbon Institute especially the writings of Richard Heinberg.
|
|
6/8/2010, 12:27 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to HOMBREDELATIERRA
Blog
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
You are not logged in ( login)
|
