Pellet stove
Yepp
be to supplement my forced air furnace with one of these pellet stoves. I
would guess that the price of pellets or corn will go up too with gas prices
going up delivery has to follow suit. Does anyone have one of these or any
other helpful information would be welcomed. I live 30 miles south west of
Chicago for my general area of the country.
Thanks for any information.
Roger Taylor
news:432f39e8$0$7993$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
I have a regular epa approved Jotul wood stove as a heating supplement to my
rather weak central gas system, and I love the stove. My friends who have
pellet stoves cannot run them in an emergency, as they take electric power
to feed the pellets to the fire. They also make an annoying grinding sound
all the time. A real wood stove is both silent, romantic, and works when
electricity is down. I suspect pellet types are also more expensive to run
than a wood stove. All you have to do is compare cost and btu yield from
pellets vs wood, per hour of burning. A good resource for your question,
with lots of good advice, is newsgroup alt.energy.homepower.
Good luck.
Amun
A few years back these were sold everywhere.
Now few places even will talk about them.
That should say something.
My thoughts were always that while the pellets were "less bother" than real
wood.
You were at the mercy of the pellet makers. and what they charge for a bag
of "fuel"
Nothing like having a real woodstove that you can even get free PALLETS from
factories in your area, saw them up and toss them in.
I've had 2 woodburners for over 15 years and have NEVER paid for a piece of
wood used in them.
Neighbors are always cutting trees, and supply me with more wood than I can
use.
AMUN
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>"Yepp" <madey...@dot.com> wrote in message
>> With the price of natural gas going up I'm wondering how efficient it
>> would be to supplement my forced air furnace with one of these pellet
>> stoves. I would guess that the price of pellets or corn will go up too
>> with gas prices going up delivery has to follow suit...
>
>...I suspect pellet types are also more expensive to run than a wood stove.
That depends on how you value labor.
>All you have to do is compare cost and btu yield from pellets vs wood...
My friend's grandfather is quite happy with his new $7500 corn stove.
He bought some moldy corn for $1.50 per bushel (vs about $2 for good
corn), and says it's equivalent to 4 gallons of oil. The stove has
been burning non-stop for the last 3 weeks making hot water for showers,
etc. It has an automatic feed and needs ashes removed about once a week.
Some pellet stoves have concentric chimneys with air-air heat exchangers
and an efficient low flue temp and don't need conventional chimneys.
Corn seems more convenient than pellets, if delivered in bulk, but it's
hard to believe it's so much cheaper than oil. Maybe that has something
to do with ag subsidies. And a corn plant seems like a very large and
inefficient way to produce an ear or two of corn, with lots of water and
herbicides and cultivation and fertilizer. Maybe we should burn soybeans
instead. They are round and might bridge less in a hopper.
Nick
cybe...@yahoo.com
> corn), and says it's equivalent to 4 gallons of oil. The stove has
Hmm. right now I wouldn't mind knowing where I could sell good corn for
$2. It's around $1.50 for #2, with heavy discounts for pretty much
everything.
> hard to believe it's so much cheaper than oil. Maybe that has something
> to do with ag subsidies.
I'm not sure what you are implying here, but if it's what I think I
take some offense to that comment.
>And a corn plant seems like a very large and
> inefficient way to produce an ear or two of corn
How else do you propose to get an ear of corn? :) And FWIW, $1.65 is
about break even cost for most farmers(not considering capital
amortization) for input costs. At least in my area. The two biggest
variables that will vary from region to region being expected yield and
land rent(generally directly related). Given the skyrocketing cost of
fuel(and consequently Nitrogen) that number is probably going to be
$1.80 next year.
> Maybe we should burn soybeans
> instead. They are round and might bridge less in a hopper.
Haven't tried it, but I have heard burning soybeans is less
recommended. Due to the higher oil content, there will be higher
soot/creosote stuff in the flue. So I have heard. I haven't done it
so don't know for sure.
Amun
"Mark" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:e100j11m5hvtjs9f3...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:08:36 -0400, "Amun" <spamb...@bell.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Yepp" <madey...@dot.com> wrote in message
> >news:432f39e8$0$7993$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >> With the price of natural gas going up I'm wondering how efficient it
> >would
> >> be to supplement my forced air furnace with one of these pellet stoves.
I
> >> would guess that the price of pellets or corn will go up too with gas
> >prices
> >> going up delivery has to follow suit. Does anyone have one of these or
any
> >> other helpful information would be welcomed. I live 30 miles south west
of
> >> Chicago for my general area of the country.
> >>
> >> Thanks for any information.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >A few years back these were sold everywhere.
> >Now few places even will talk about them.
>
> places are now selling the pellets too. You can even get them at Home
> Depot and Lowes now. They are mainstream.
>
I hate to point this out, but some of us on USENET, don't live just down
the block from you.
<g>
AMUN
JoeSixPack
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:dgojkv$7...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
Local economies are different from global ones. If you live on a street
where they throw away a lot of cardboard boxes, that could be your cheap
fuel, but it won't work for everyone. North America has vast regions of
rapidly-growing aspen poplar that can and are being compressed into fuel for
pellet stoves. Farms produce a lot of excess plant matter that is either
left to rot or is plowed back into the soil. Pellets are the easiest form
of biofuel to produce, but they still load the atmosphere with carbon.
Steve Spence
> Local economies are different from global ones. If you live on a street
> where they throw away a lot of cardboard boxes, that could be your cheap
> fuel, but it won't work for everyone. North America has vast regions of
> rapidly-growing aspen poplar that can and are being compressed into fuel for
> pellet stoves. Farms produce a lot of excess plant matter that is either
> left to rot or is plowed back into the soil. Pellets are the easiest form
> of biofuel to produce, but they still load the atmosphere with carbon.
>
>
actually they do not add to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Bio based fuels are carbon neutral, no gain. They remove the same amount
of CO2 during the growing season.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Crossword
We moved to southwest Missouri from Michigan in February 2005. We purchased
a St Croix brand pellet stove at that time. We were able to heat our home
(about 1600 sq ft, open architecture) with on 40# bag a day. A forty pound
bag of hardwood pellets costs about $3.00. This winter we are going to buy
in bulk. The best price we have seen so far is $134 a ton at Lowe's. That
breaks down to $2.68 a bag. We have been told that two ton should do it for
the winter. The pellet stove does have a thermostat and we try to keep it
about 75° , but the house is usually about 80°.
I hope this was helpful.
Amy
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Larry Caldwell
> Pellets are the easiest form
> of biofuel to produce, but they still load the atmosphere with carbon.
No, they don't. All the carbon comes out of the atmosphere, so biofuel
does not contribute anything to atmospheric carbon. It is pure solar
energy.
zenboom
"Steve Spence" <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:dNYXe.930$Xa....@fe12.lga...
LOL
come on, guys! havn't you been over this *thoroughly* on nearby threads ??
;)
Anthony Matonak
>>
>>>of biofuel to produce, but they still load the atmosphere with carbon.
>>
>>actually they do not add to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>Bio based fuels are carbon neutral, no gain. They remove the same amount
>>of CO2 during the growing season.
>
Yes, of course we have, but some folks have learning disabilities
or just can't believe in the concept that biofuels are carbon
neutral.
Then again, I suppose they could be trolling. Nothing's going to
incite a reply more than posting a blatant non-truth.
Anthony
Crossword
JoeSixPack
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
>> Local economies are different from global ones. If you live on a street
>> where they throw away a lot of cardboard boxes, that could be your cheap
>> fuel, but it won't work for everyone. North America has vast regions of
>> rapidly-growing aspen poplar that can and are being compressed into fuel
>> for pellet stoves. Farms produce a lot of excess plant matter that is
>> either left to rot or is plowed back into the soil. Pellets are the
>> easiest form of biofuel to produce, but they still load the atmosphere
>> with carbon.
> actually they do not add to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
> Bio based fuels are carbon neutral, no gain. They remove the same amount
> of CO2 during the growing season.
We've had this argument before, and it's a specious one. Switching to
biofuels does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon being loaded
into the atmosphere, nor does it trigger the earth to assimilate carbon
faster. The dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has been a result
of burning carbon-based fuels faster than the earth can assimilate it. It
makes no difference which carbon-based fuel is being burned, rapid
atmospheric CO2 loading will still occur. The only way to reverse the trend
is to reduce the burning of carbon-based fuels to a point where the
assimilation rate exceeds our emission rate. The bigger the difference, the
faster the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will decline.
Steve Spence
>
> We've had this argument before, and it's a specious one. Switching to
> biofuels does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon being loaded
> into the atmosphere, nor does it trigger the earth to assimilate carbon
> faster. The dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has been a result
> of burning carbon-based fuels faster than the earth can assimilate it. It
> makes no difference which carbon-based fuel is being burned, rapid
> atmospheric CO2 loading will still occur. The only way to reverse the trend
> is to reduce the burning of carbon-based fuels to a point where the
> assimilation rate exceeds our emission rate. The bigger the difference, the
> faster the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will decline.
>
>
It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a
fact. Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous
growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to it.
Oscar_Lives
<cybe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127223821.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>> hard to believe it's so much cheaper than oil. Maybe that has something
>> to do with ag subsidies.
> I'm not sure what you are implying here, but if it's what I think I
> take some offense to that comment.
>
What kind of offense are you taking to this comment. It is no secret that
corn is highly subsidized by the taxpayers through our ag-oriented
government.
JoeSixPack
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
>>
>> We've had this argument before, and it's a specious one. Switching to
>> biofuels does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon being loaded
>> into the atmosphere, nor does it trigger the earth to assimilate carbon
>> faster. The dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has been a
>> result of burning carbon-based fuels faster than the earth can assimilate
>> it. It makes no difference which carbon-based fuel is being burned,
>> rapid atmospheric CO2 loading will still occur. The only way to reverse
>> the trend is to reduce the burning of carbon-based fuels to a point where
>> the assimilation rate exceeds our emission rate. The bigger the
>> difference, the faster the CO2 levels in our atmosphere will decline.
>
> It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a fact.
> Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
> concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous
> growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to it.
>
>
You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way, you
just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than the
earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from the
atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing more
plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either. All the
cropland is already covered with vegetation.
Steve Spence
> You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way, you
> just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than the
> earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from the
> atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing more
> plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either. All the
> cropland is already covered with vegetation.
>
>
We have to burn fuel. which fuel would you rather burn, one that is
carbon neutral, or one that is releasing carbon that's been sequestered
for eon's? It seems you are the one who is not getting it.
Arnold Walker
"JoeSixPack" <ol...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:ZUoYe.242494$9A2.132906@edtnps89...
So how is the air levels after 14 hurricanes, water scrubbed it.
Must be the reason we didn't have any fish kills in low oxygen water areas.
That NO hurricane just aerated the "fire out of" the water.
If that be the case, your air can absorb alot more stuff this year.
Even by your logic.......
Arnold Walker
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:1127374...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Doug Miller
>You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way, you
>just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than the
>earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from the
>atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing more
>plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either.
Obviously it will, since those plants are removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
>All the
>cropland is already covered with vegetation.
Speaking of uninformed... where in the world did you get *that* idea?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Goedjn
>
>It's only specious in your eyes, and it's surely no argument. It's a
>fact. Burning fossil fuels releases new CO2 into the air, adding to
>concentrations, burning biofuels releases co2 removed in the previous
>growing season, not adding to concentrations. That's all there is to it.
Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air,
it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where
it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.
So the open question is whether growing corn for fuel
REMOVES more carbon from the air than would have been
removed had you not grown corn for fuel.
If you burn one ton of carbon in the form of dead dinosaurs,
that puts one ton of carbon in the air, if you burn one
ton of carbon in the form of corn-oil, that ALSO puts one
tone of carbon in the air. If you grow a ton-s worth
of carbon-bearing corn, and then burn it. The net effect
on the atmosphere is zero. If you grow one ton's worth
of carbon bearing corn and DON'T burn it, the net effect
is minus one ton. How much carbon is in the
parts of the corn that you don't burn? How much
carbon is in whatever would be growing there if you
weren't growing fuel-corn?
Steve Spence
If I grow one ton of corn and burn it, I am not burning the equivalent
BTU in petroleum based oil. Therfore my energy consumption is carbon
neutral.
Harry Chickpea
That last staement spurs me to a response.
Oddly enough, there may be a non-human culprit that bears some
responsibility for increasing carbon levels. I was surprised to find
that the common earthworm is not indiginous to north america, but was
imported by the europeans. While earthworms do aerate the soil, they
are also implicated in shinking the layers of detrius called "duff"
that carpets forest lands. That duff is a huge carbon sink that is
being lost.
Duane Bozarth
>
...
> Oddly enough, there may be a non-human culprit that bears some
> responsibility for increasing carbon levels. I was surprised to find
> that the common earthworm is not indiginous to north america, but was
> imported by the europeans. While earthworms do aerate the soil, they
> are also implicated in shinking the layers of detrius called "duff"
> that carpets forest lands. That duff is a huge carbon sink that is
> being lost.
Reference?
Larry Caldwell
(Harry Chickpea) says...
> I was surprised to find
> that the common earthworm is not indiginous to north america, but was
> imported by the europeans.
Perhaps one species was imported, but there are several earthworm
species that are native to North America.
Larry Caldwell
pr...@mail.uri.edu (Goedjn) says...
> Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air,
> it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where
> it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.
Yes, it does matter where it came from. In the case of biofuels, the
carbon all came out of the atmosphere, so you are not adding any more.
In the case of fossil fuels, all the carbon came out of the ground, and
you are dumping it into the atmosphere, causing a carbon buildup.
It doesn't matter whether you burn corn or not, all the carbon will end
up back in the atmosphere unless you protect it from decay. If you want
to sequester carbon, you have to put it back into the ground. That's
why those landfills full of disposable diapers have their up side.
Larry Caldwell
(JoeSixPack) says...
> You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way, you
> just aren't getting it.
Troll.
Duane Bozarth
>
> In article <p8k5j1hhi9sfsq26q...@4ax.com>,
> pr...@mail.uri.edu (Goedjn) says...
>
> > Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air,
> > it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where
> > it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.
>
> Yes, it does matter where it came from. In the case of biofuels, the
> carbon all came out of the atmosphere, so you are not adding any more.
> In the case of fossil fuels, all the carbon came out of the ground, and
> you are dumping it into the atmosphere, causing a carbon buildup.
Fossil fuels <are> biofuels...just not currently produced.
Steve Spence
and therefore the carbon isn't current either. Burning it releases that
stored carbon into play.
Duane Bozarth
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > Larry Caldwell wrote:
> >
> >>In article <p8k5j1hhi9sfsq26q...@4ax.com>,
> >>pr...@mail.uri.edu (Goedjn) says...
> >>
> >>
> >>>Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air,
> >>>it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where
> >>>it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.
> >>
> >>Yes, it does matter where it came from. In the case of biofuels, the
> >>carbon all came out of the atmosphere, so you are not adding any more.
> >>In the case of fossil fuels, all the carbon came out of the ground, and
> >>you are dumping it into the atmosphere, causing a carbon buildup.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Fossil fuels <are> biofuels...just not currently produced.
>
> and therefore the carbon isn't current either. Burning it releases that
> stored carbon into play.
>
But where did it come from?
Larry Caldwell
JoeSixPack
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
>> You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way,
>> you just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than
>> the earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate
>> from the atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels.
>> Growing more plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster
>> either. All the cropland is already covered with vegetation.
> We have to burn fuel. which fuel would you rather burn, one that is carbon
> neutral, or one that is releasing carbon that's been sequestered for
> eon's? It seems you are the one who is not getting it.
>
It doesn't matter if you call it carbon-neutral or not, the CO2 will
continue to rise if you continue to burn carbon-based fuels at the current
rate. The atmosphere doesn't know you switched to your "carbon-neutral
fuel." It continues to take the carbon out of the atmosphere at the same
slow rate that lags behind the rate we put it in. This is what caused the
rise. Growing more biofuel crops doesn't automatically lower the atmospheric
CO2, because there are already plants growing on nearly all the arable land.
You keep saying "carbon-neutral" as if it were a fact that it would reduce
atmospheric carbon in some way. Prove it to us.
JoeSixPack
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:1127374...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
Can you explain to us what hurricanes have to do with reducing carbon
dioxide in the air?
JoeSixPack
You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left over
after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn the grain
itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as a fuel?
Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for example is a
very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has been used in the
past as a heating fuel.
JoeSixPack
"Larry Caldwell" <lar...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d9c82cc9...@news.west.earthlink.net...
You tend to overestimate the impact of the American consumer on the global
carbon sink. They do, however have a disproportionately large influence on
carbon emissions.
Arnold Walker
Then stop and think how much bigger the bubbler is in a hurricane .a100+
miles wide.
Then check out the smog alerts in the Gulf Coastal area for the same period
as the hurricanes.
JoeSixPack
Are you for real? Is smog CO2? CO2 is an odorless, colorless gas that
exists all over the earth in a concentration of about 377 parts per million.
My apologies. I thought I was arguing with someone who had a basic
understanding of atmospherics.
Brock Ulfsen
(National) Socialist
> government.
...Brock.
Brock Ulfsen
Actually much cropland is not covered in vegetation.
Also, modern hybrids have shorter stalks, and thus lay down less carbon
per acre than heritage varieties.
Some crops grow more Biomas per acre than others, compare strawberries
and Sugarcane...
...Brock.
Brock Ulfsen
> If you grow one ton's worth
> of carbon bearing corn and DON'T burn it, the net effect
> is minus one ton. How much carbon is in the
> parts of the corn that you don't burn? How much
> carbon is in whatever would be growing there if you
> weren't growing fuel-corn?
If you eat the corn, much of the carbon goes back into the atmosphere.
If you bury it and let it rot, it goes back into the atmoshpere...
...Brock.
Brock Ulfsen
> Fossil fuels <are> biofuels...just not currently produced.
But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the
formation of the solar system.
...Brock.
Steve Spence
>
> It doesn't matter if you call it carbon-neutral or not, the CO2 will
> continue to rise if you continue to burn carbon-based fuels at the current
> rate. The atmosphere doesn't know you switched to your "carbon-neutral
> fuel." It continues to take the carbon out of the atmosphere at the same
> slow rate that lags behind the rate we put it in. This is what caused the
> rise. Growing more biofuel crops doesn't automatically lower the atmospheric
> CO2, because there are already plants growing on nearly all the arable land.
>
> You keep saying "carbon-neutral" as if it were a fact that it would reduce
> atmospheric carbon in some way. Prove it to us.
>
>
I'm sorry you are having problems reading. I never said it would reduce
atmospheric carbon, I said there would be no net gain. Neutral does not
mean subtraction or addition. Burning fossil fuels is addition.
Steve Spence
> You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left over
> after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn the grain
> itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as a fuel?
> Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for example is a
> very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has been used in the
> past as a heating fuel.
>
>
I'm burning the oil, not the actual kernels. Corn can produce biodiesel,
ethanol, and animal feed all from the same bushel.
Duane Bozarth
>
...
> Also, modern hybrids have shorter stalks, and thus lay down less carbon
> per acre than heritage varieties.
Not really, for the most part--hybrid wheat, corn, soybeans all are
essentially the same size plants as always. What crops specifically are
you thinking of?
Plus, most hybrids are grown in much higher "plants/acre" than were
their predecessors--both narrower row spacing as well as plant spacing
in order to produce higher net yields...
....
Duane Bozarth
>
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
> > You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left over
> > after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn the grain
> > itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as a fuel?
> > Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for example is a
> > very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has been used in the
> > past as a heating fuel.
> >
> >
> I'm burning the oil, not the actual kernels. Corn can produce biodiesel,
> ethanol, and animal feed all from the same bushel.
>
The other answer in part to SixPack's question is simply
convenience--it's far easier to handle the grain than the rest of the
plant....
Duane Bozarth
What evidence for that is there?
Goedjn
>> You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way, you
>> just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than the
>> earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from the
>> atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing more
>> plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either. All the
>> cropland is already covered with vegetation.
>
>Actually much cropland is not covered in vegetation.
If it's cropland, it's growing crops. That takes some amount of
carbon out of the air. It is yet to be shown that converting
cropland (or non-crop greenspace) to fuel-corn increases
the amount of carbon sucked out of the air by exactly the amount
of carbon pumped INTO the air by burning the fuel-part, and
that's what you have to show for it to be "carbon-nuetral"
by one definition. (by another definition, you'd have to
show only that burning the corn-oil releases the same amont
of carbon that the plant concentrated in the first place.
Obviously this can be true only if you use the entire plant
for fuel. Which we don't, and probably won't)
By neither definition is there any particular reason to
believe that bio-fuel is actually carbon nuetral.
But carbon nuetrality isn't what we care about, anyway.
A simplified model is that we burn a certain amount
of carbon-fuel, adding that much carbon to the atmosphere (F)
If that fuel comed from corn-oil (or whatever) then
we have a certain amount of land growing corn, which will
suck a certain amount or carbon OUT of the air. Call that (C).
If, on the other hand, we get our fuel from dead dinosaurs,
then the land that WOULD be growing corn will instead grow
something else, and that something else will suck
a different amount of carbon out of the air. Call that (D)
The question that MATTERS is whether C > D.
My suspicion is that we'dd end up with less carbon in
the air if we go ahead and keep burning dead dinosaurs,
and use the cropland to produce things that permanantly
remove carbon, like CAF panels, construction-lumber, and
pencil-leads.
>
>Also, modern hybrids have shorter stalks, and thus lay down less carbon
>per acre than heritage varieties.
I'm not sure that that matters. The ratio of the useful part of
the plant to the non-useful part goes up. Which part has
more carbon in it? probably the part that makes good fuel.
It's quite possible (even likely) that the new varieties actually
INCREASE the carbon-per-acre.
Goedjn
>
>If I grow one ton of corn and burn it, I am not burning the equivalent
>BTU in petroleum based oil. Therfore my energy consumption is carbon
>neutral.
Your conclusion does not follow from your postulates.
This doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, but
it does mean that your argument is.
--goedjn
JoeSixPack
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
>>
>> It doesn't matter if you call it carbon-neutral or not, the CO2 will
>> continue to rise if you continue to burn carbon-based fuels at the
>> current rate. The atmosphere doesn't know you switched to your
>> "carbon-neutral fuel." It continues to take the carbon out of the
>> atmosphere at the same slow rate that lags behind the rate we put it in.
>> This is what caused the rise. Growing more biofuel crops doesn't
>> automatically lower the atmospheric CO2, because there are already plants
>> growing on nearly all the arable land.
>>
>> You keep saying "carbon-neutral" as if it were a fact that it would
>> reduce atmospheric carbon in some way. Prove it to us.
>
> I'm sorry you are having problems reading. I never said it would reduce
> atmospheric carbon, I said there would be no net gain. Neutral does not
> mean subtraction or addition. Burning fossil fuels is addition.
I see where you are having difficulty. I am saying that as long as
emissions exceed assimilation, atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise. If
you are saying that if we start growing a lot of crops for biofuels, that
trend will stop, I have to respectfully disagree. The globe is already
covered with vegetation, and the oceans are full of blue-green algae, so
anything we can do by way of increasing crop growth will not be enough to
halt, or even slow significantly the rise of CO2 in our atmosphere.
If you are willing to debate me on this point, I'm quite willing to listen.
Anthony Matonak
>
> ... It is yet to be shown that converting
> cropland (or non-crop greenspace) to fuel-corn increases
> the amount of carbon sucked out of the air by exactly the amount
> of carbon pumped INTO the air by burning the fuel-part, and
> that's what you have to show for it to be "carbon-nuetral"
All green plants get all their carbon from the air in
a process called photosynthesis.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle2.html
This means all biofuels derived from plants get all
their carbon from the air. This means when you burn
biofuels and release that carbon all of it came from
a plant which took it out of the air in the first place.
This means that all biofuels are carbon neutral by
definition. It's an indisputable fact, a truism. It's
so obvious that people don't have to keep proving it
every time the use the term.
Anthony
JoeSixPack
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
>> You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left over
>> after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn the
>> grain itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as a
>> fuel? Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for
>> example is a very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has
>> been used in the past as a heating fuel.
> I'm burning the oil, not the actual kernels. Corn can produce biodiesel,
> ethanol, and animal feed all from the same bushel.
Corn is rarely grown for it's oil. A typical kernel of corn has 7-7.5% oil
content. Other crops are far better for this, such as oilseeds like canola,
which has 40-50% oil content. The remainder of the seed is a high-quality
animal feed. Where optimal conditions exist, canola can produce 500Kg of oil
per acre, or 17,000 gallons of crude canola oil per square mile. The vast
majority of available acres are far from optimal, so a much lower yield
figure is reasonable.
Using a realistic yield of 10,000 gallons per sq mile, the economics are
still a long way from feasible, compared to other fuel options. The
production costs alone for a square mile of canola is approximately $25,000
US. Add to this, estimated processing and distribution costs of another
$25,000, and the net consumer price for a typical gallon of biofuel canola
oil is likely to exceed $7 US. I'd say we have to experience a lot more
petroleum price increases for this to be a feasible alternative.
JoeSixPack
"Goedjn" <pr...@mail.uri.edu> wrote in message
news:u5c8j11hefvlgqsem...@4ax.com...
That may be true in theory, but in practice, the CO2 levels in our
atmosphere will continue to rise. An equilibrium used to exist, before our
industrial revolution, where the amount of carbon released by biotic
respiration and natural fires, was roughly equal to the rate at which the
earth was able to re-absorb that carbon.
Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories, powerplants
and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason the
atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel we
are burning.
"Carbon-neutral" sounds fine, but it's ridiculous to think that atmospheric
CO2 will stop rising just because we switch from fossil-carbon fuel to
biofuel-carbon fuel. The only way to stop that is to stop burning
carbon-based fuels altogether.
JoeSixPack
"Duane Bozarth" <dpbo...@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
news:43340E7D...@swko.dot.net...
Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:
1) Oil was found on Mars
2) Oil was found in Sweden at the rim of a meteorite crater that punctured
the earth's crust millions of years ago. There were none of the porous
coral-reef ocean-sediment formations that normally hold oil were found, and
are postulated to be where oil must be formed by ancient lifeforms.
3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well as
radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of the
radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the
surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by
impervious overburden.
Duane Bozarth
>
> "Steve Spence" <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:3RTYe.12420$H24....@fe11.lga...
> > JoeSixPack wrote:
> >
> >> You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left over
> >> after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn the
> >> grain itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as a
> >> fuel? Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for
> >> example is a very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has
> >> been used in the past as a heating fuel.
> > I'm burning the oil, not the actual kernels. Corn can produce biodiesel,
> > ethanol, and animal feed all from the same bushel.
>
> Corn is rarely grown for it's oil.
I'd extend that to say corn is never grown solely for its oil, but corn
oil is a significant product--where would MickeyD be w/o it, for
example? :)
Q. What can be extracted from a bushel of corn?
A. The wet milling process yields approximately 31.5 pounds of starch,
which can be further processed into 33 pounds of sweetener or 2.5
gallons of ethanol. In addition, 13.5 pounds of corn gluten feed, 2.5
pounds of corn gluten meal and 1.6 pounds of corn oil can be extracted.
> A typical kernel of corn has 7-7.5% oil content.
The extractable oil is in the germ and that seems a little high to me,
but in the ballpark, certainly.
Other crops are far better for this, such as oilseeds like canola,
> which has 40-50% oil content. The remainder of the seed is a high-quality
> animal feed. Where optimal conditions exist, canola can produce 500Kg of oil
> per acre, or 17,000 gallons of crude canola oil per square mile. The vast
> majority of available acres are far from optimal, so a much lower yield
> figure is reasonable.
>
> Using a realistic yield of 10,000 gallons per sq mile, the economics are
> still a long way from feasible, compared to other fuel options. The
> production costs alone for a square mile of canola is approximately $25,000
> US. Add to this, estimated processing and distribution costs of another
> $25,000, and the net consumer price for a typical gallon of biofuel canola
> oil is likely to exceed $7 US. I'd say we have to experience a lot more
> petroleum price increases for this to be a feasible alternative.
At present, production costs for corn ethanol are lower than the going
price for gasoline and one would only expect that to continue to favor
alternate fuel sources in the long-range future. Last I saw was
something around $1.20-$1.30 for the raw material. Processing costs
were on the order of $0.30 iirc, so net delivered cost is something in
the near $2/gal range--significantly less than $3 gasoline. I know
processing costs have escalated some owing to higher energy costs, but
don't have any new data to know the overall impact.
Some area stations had E85 at nearly a full $1 less than regular
unleaded...
While I expect there to be a significant drop in oil prices to near
pre-Katrina prices and probably approaching $40/bbl again for a short
time in a year or so, the <$30/bbl days are gone forever in all
likelihood.
Steve Spence
You do realize corn oil is available it the grocery store .....
Corn is a good crop because it's commonly grown, it can be pressed for
oil, and mashed for ethanol, plus the distillers grains are used for
animal feed, so it has many by products.
Duane Bozarth
Any citations for any of the above?
Goedjn
>
>"Carbon-neutral" sounds fine, but it's ridiculous to think that atmospheric
>CO2 will stop rising just because we switch from fossil-carbon fuel to
>biofuel-carbon fuel. The only way to stop that is to stop burning
>carbon-based fuels altogether.
>
Or find a plant or environment that's particularly good at
sucking carbon out of the atmosphere. Crank the global
temp a degree or so, And I'll bet you get algae blooms
like you never saw... that ought to do it...
Goedjn
>
>Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:
>
>1) Oil was found on Mars
You really are a nutcase, aren't you?
>
>3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well as
>radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of the
>radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the
>surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by
>impervious overburden.
You're confusing "hydrocarbon" and "Helium", I think.
>
Duane Bozarth
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <dpbo...@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
> news:43340E7D...@swko.dot.net...
> > Brock Ulfsen wrote:
> >>
> >> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> >> > Fossil fuels <are> biofuels...just not currently produced.
> >>
> >> But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the
> >> formation of the solar system.
> >
> > What evidence for that is there?
>
> Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:
>
> 1) Oil was found on Mars
I find references to using techniques developed for terrestrial oil
exploration <on> Mars as part of the search for evidence of life on
Mars, but absolutely no indication of any oil being discovered on Mars.
> 2) Oil was found in Sweden at the rim of a meteorite crater that punctured
> the earth's crust millions of years ago. There were none of the porous
> coral-reef ocean-sediment formations that normally hold oil were found, and
> are postulated to be where oil must be formed by ancient lifeforms.
Aaah! A little searching uncovers much--including the following little
tidbit of info. While there's a lot of links to others they're all
pretty far-fetched at best.
No Free Lunch, Part 2: If abiotic oil exists, where is it?, by Dale
Allen Pfeiffer
© Copyright 2005, From The Wilderness Publications,
www.fromthewilderness.com.
Siljan, Sweden
One of the most notable efforts to prove the existence of abiotic
hydrocarbons was undertaken by the Swedes at the urging of Thomas Gold.
...
From 1986 to 1992, two commercial wells were drilled in the Siljan
crater, at a reported cost of over $60 million.2 Only 80 barrels of oily
sludge were taken from the field. While Dr. Gold claimed this oil to
have an abiotic origin, others have pointed out that the early drilling
used injected oil as a lubricant, and that this is the likely origin of
the oily sludge.3 It has also been mentioned that sedimentary rocks 20
kilometers away could have been the source of hydrocarbon seepage.4
Others have observed that during World War II, the Swedish blasted into
the bedrock to produce caverns in order to stockpile petroleum supplies.
...
Even if we grant that these hydrocarbons are abiogenic (though it is a
highly dubious claim), this exploration could only be termed a success
in the most attenuated sense of the word. These 80 barrels of oily
sludge cost investors three quarters of a million dollars per barrel.
And if they had gone to the trouble of extracting the oil from the
sludge and refining it, they would have had even less oil, and their
expenses would have increased by the cost of extraction and refining.
> 3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well as
> radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of the
> radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the
> surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by
> impervious overburden.
Which radioactive decay process is that? As a NucE, it's one I've not
come across previously...
Solar Flare
"JoeSixPack" <ol...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:nuYYe.303954$on1.168159@clgrps13...
Steve Spence
> Semantics but "carbon does not burn"
>
pike
reabsorb the CO2 released the previous winter, rather than releasing the CO2
from carbon that has been safely buried for millions of years. Hope we might
get there before climate change unleashes hopeless amounts of who knows
what.
"Larry Caldwell" <lar...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:1127257274.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
> > Pellets are the easiest form
> > of biofuel to produce, but they still load the atmosphere with carbon.
>
> No, they don't. All the carbon comes out of the atmosphere, so biofuel
> does not contribute anything to atmospheric carbon. It is pure solar
> energy.
>
Solar Flare
carbon and oxygen. What would it be reduced to?
"Steve Spence" <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:nz_Ye.12874$H24....@fe11.lga...
JoeSixPack
The only reason corn ethanol is that cheap is because of massive,
overlapping subsidies on both growing the corn and in processing it for
ethanol. A recent study found that it takes more energy to produce ethanol
than the ethanol contains.
JoeSixPack
So is olive, palm, sunflower, safflower, peanut, canola, fish, lard, and
about a hundred others. What's your point?
>
> Corn is a good crop because it's commonly grown, it can be pressed for
> oil, and mashed for ethanol, plus the distillers grains are used for
> animal feed, so it has many by products.
Does that make it feasible as a replacement for petroleum fuel?
JoeSixPack
Google "abiotic oil"
Doug Miller
>
>"Duane Bozarth" <dpbo...@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
>news:43340E7D...@swko.dot.net...
>> Brock Ulfsen wrote:
>>>
>>> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>>> > Fossil fuels <are> biofuels...just not currently produced.
>>>
>>> But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the
>>> formation of the solar system.
>>
>> What evidence for that is there?
>
>
>Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:
>
>1) Oil was found on Mars
Say what?
>
>2) Oil was found in Sweden at the rim of a meteorite crater that punctured
>the earth's crust millions of years ago. There were none of the porous
>coral-reef ocean-sediment formations that normally hold oil were found, and
>are postulated to be where oil must be formed by ancient lifeforms.
Uh-huh. Sure.
>
>3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well as
>radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of the
>radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the
>surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by
>impervious overburden.
Absolute nonsense. There is *no* radioactive decay series that produces
hydrocarbons in any fashion.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Doug Miller
>Semantics but "carbon does not burn"
Oh, yes it does.
>
>"JoeSixPack" <ol...@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:nuYYe.303954$on1.168159@clgrps13...
>
>"Goedjn" <pr...@mail.uri.edu> wrote in message
>news:u5c8j11hefvlgqsem...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>
>>>If I grow one ton of corn and burn it, I am not burning the equivalent
>>>BTU in petroleum based oil. Therfore my energy consumption is carbon
>>>neutral.
>>
>>
>> Your conclusion does not follow from your postulates.
>> This doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, but
>> it does mean that your argument is.
>>
>
>That may be true in theory, but in practice, the CO2 levels in our
>atmosphere will continue to rise. An equilibrium used to exist, before our
>industrial revolution, where the amount of carbon released by biotic
>respiration and natural fires, was roughly equal to the rate at which the
>earth was able to re-absorb that carbon.
And there will eventually be an equilibrium again. Probably at a higher
concentration -- possibly *much* higher -- but there will be equilibrium
again. Eventually.
>
>Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories, powerplants
>and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason the
>atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel we
>are burning.
>
>"Carbon-neutral" sounds fine, but it's ridiculous to think that atmospheric
>CO2 will stop rising just because we switch from fossil-carbon fuel to
>biofuel-carbon fuel. The only way to stop that is to stop burning
>carbon-based fuels altogether.
Seems you've completely missed the point of the biofuel discussion. There is a
qualitative difference in the effect of burning biofuel vs. burning fossil
fuel: the carbon in biofuel came from the atmosphere, and returns to the
atmosphere when burned -- hence no net change in carbon content in the
atmosphere. The carbon in fossil fuel came out of the ground, and burning it
produces a net increase in atmospheric carbon.
Doug Miller
>I didn't imply that but it sounds like it doesn't either being composed of
>carbon and oxygen. What would it be reduced to?
It wouldn't be "reduced" to anything. It would be *oxidized* from CO to CO2.
Simple reaction: 2CO + O2 --> 2CO2.
bogax
> Where optimal conditions exist, canola can produce 500Kg of oil
> per acre, or 17,000 gallons of crude canola oil per square mile.
Thats about 40 pounds/gallon
Brock Ulfsen
> Brock Ulfsen wrote:
>>Also, modern hybrids have shorter stalks, and thus lay down less carbon
>>per acre than heritage varieties.
> Not really, for the most part--hybrid wheat, corn, soybeans all are
> essentially the same size plants as always. What crops specifically are
> you thinking of?
Sorghum, wheat, barley, many of the varieties grown in Australia are
significantly less that 50cm tall at harvest, as opposed to heritage
pure strains many of which stand twice (or three times) as tall. Lots
of leaf, big seed heads, very little actual stalk.
...Brock.
Brock Ulfsen
> Brock Ulfsen wrote:
>>formation of the solar system.
> What evidence for that is there?
Well, a neutral article covering the basis
ishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Or for something a little more in depth:
Authors: Rasmussen, Birger1
Source: Geology; Jun2005, Vol. 33 Issue 6, p497-500, 4p
NAICS/Industry Codes: 4227 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Wholesalers
Abstract: Petroleum generation largely occurs through the thermal
decomposition of organic matter. The presence of oil-bearing fluid
inclusions and pyrobitumen in Archean rocks suggests that similar
processes operated us early as ca. 3.25 Ga. However, direct evidence of
petroleum generation from potential source rocks is lacking, and an
abiogenic origin has been proposed for some Archean carbonaceous
residues. Pilbara craton ca. 3.2 Ga and ca. 2.63 Ga black shales were
found to contain abundant kerogenous streaks and laminae, as well as
bitumen nodules (comprising a radioactive mineral core surrounded by a
carbonaceous rim) and pyrobitumen (formerly petroleum) globules, films,
and aggregates. The bitumen nodules formed around detrital radioactive
grains via polymerization of fluid hydrocarbons generated within the
shale and represent diagnostic indicators of oil generation in ancient
shales. The bitumen globules, films, and masses are preserved within
anthigenic pyrite and demonstrate that a separate hydrocarbon phase had
developed in the shale matrix during burial, providing compelling
evidence for in situ petroleum generation and expulsion. The abundance
of bitumen nodules and residual pyrobitnmen in black shales across the
Pilbara craton suggests that hydrocarbon generation from kerogenous
shales was a common phenomenon during the Middle to Late Archean. The
petroleum was generated from organic matter that accumulated in marine
environments, most probably comprising the remains of photosynthetic and
chemosynthetic organisms, pointing to a sizeable biomass as early as 3.2
Ga. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Author Affiliations: 1School of Earth and Geographical Sciences,
University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
ISSN: 0091-7613
Carbonaceous Chondrites are meteorites that have a large percentage of
what is effectively crude oil in their substance, some of it in a matrix
much like oil shale. Also remember that helium is all sourced from
oil/gas wells.
...Brock.
Shiver
> Or for something a little more in depth:
Good grief Brock.... About the only thing I could understand is part
of the first sentance.....
> Petroleum generation largely occurs
After that it gets a little heavy
Brock Ulfsen
> Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories, powerplants
> and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason the
> atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel we
> are burning.
We've been burning carbon fuels for something like 1 to 1.5 million years.
All of our fuel came from the bioshpere until the adoption of coal and
oil to drive the Dark Satanic Mills of the industrial revolution.
The fuel was carbon neutral, it grew, mostly within a century of when we
used it, we burned it (as opposed to it decaying), its carbon returned
to the carbin cycle.
...Brock.
Brock Ulfsen
> I didn't imply that but it sounds like it doesn't either being composed of
> carbon and oxygen. What would it be reduced to?
Reduction and combustion are complimentary processes. If you want iron,
you reduce iron oxides, if you want rust, you oxegenate iron (slowly, it
rusts, fast and you use it to cut your way through things (thermite
(<waves to Eschelon>))...
Ask a metalurgist, or potter...
...Brock.
(Many Russian Nuclear Vessels are now complete bombs.)
Steve Spence
> I didn't imply that but it sounds like it doesn't either being composed of
> carbon and oxygen. What would it be reduced to?
>
> "Steve Spence" <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:nz_Ye.12874$H24....@fe11.lga...
> Solar Flare wrote:
>
>>Semantics but "carbon does not burn"
>>
>
> so, carbon monoxide (CO) doesn't burn?
>
>
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/p1/producer.asp
Steve Spence
> The only reason corn ethanol is that cheap is because of massive,
> overlapping subsidies on both growing the corn and in processing it for
> ethanol. A recent study found that it takes more energy to produce ethanol
> than the ethanol contains.
>
>
That "recent study" was bought and paid for by the oil industry, and is
bogus:
http://www.green-trust.org/2005/07/is-ethanol-sustainable.html
Steve Spence
>>You do realize corn oil is available it the grocery store .....
>
>
> So is olive, palm, sunflower, safflower, peanut, canola, fish, lard, and
> about a hundred others. What's your point?
you claimed it was rarely grown for oil. you were wrong.
>
>
>>Corn is a good crop because it's commonly grown, it can be pressed for
>>oil, and mashed for ethanol, plus the distillers grains are used for
>>animal feed, so it has many by products.
>
>
> Does that make it feasible as a replacement for petroleum fuel?
>
>
as one replacement, yes. since you can make biodiesel and ethanol from
the same bushel, plus animal feed, it's a very good source of fuel.
JoeSixPack
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
>>>You do realize corn oil is available it the grocery store .....
>>
>>
>> So is olive, palm, sunflower, safflower, peanut, canola, fish, lard, and
>> about a hundred others. What's your point?
>
> you claimed it was rarely grown for oil. you were wrong.
>>
>>
>>>Corn is a good crop because it's commonly grown, it can be pressed for
>>>oil, and mashed for ethanol, plus the distillers grains are used for
>>>animal feed, so it has many by products.
>>
>>
>> Does that make it feasible as a replacement for petroleum fuel?
> as one replacement, yes. since you can make biodiesel and ethanol from the
> same bushel, plus animal feed, it's a very good source of fuel.
Even if it costs $10 a gallon?
JoeSixPack
"Brock Ulfsen" <elfw...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:433500f1$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Solar Flare wrote:
>> Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories,
>> powerplants
>> and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason
>> the
>> atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel
>> we
>> are burning.
>
> We've been burning carbon fuels for something like 1 to 1.5 million years.
>
> All of our fuel came from the bioshpere until the adoption of coal and oil
> to drive the Dark Satanic Mills of the industrial revolution.
>
Which Luddite said that originally?
> The fuel was carbon neutral, it grew, mostly within a century of when we
> used it, we burned it (as opposed to it decaying), its carbon returned to
> the carbin cycle.
>
> ...Brock.
So where did all the excess "carbin" in the atmosphere come from before we
started burning petroleum?
JoeSixPack
>
>>
>>Here are some of the points of circumstantial evidence for that theory:
>>
>>1) Oil was found on Mars
>
> You really are a nutcase, aren't you?
>
No, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this point. The dark
seeps seen on Mars have not yet conclusively been determined to be
petroleum. I incorrectly interpreted such speculation as evidence.
>
>>
>>3) The Earth's core contains a large amount of silicon carbide, as well as
>>radioactive elements. In theory, hydrocarbons should be a bi-product of
>>the
>>radioactive decay process, and being very light, should rise towards the
>>surface, where it would be trapped by porous reservoirs and sealed in by
>>impervious overburden.
>
> You're confusing "hydrocarbon" and "Helium", I think.
>>
The occurrence of helium in natural gas deposits is actually sited as
evidence for the "abiotic oil" theory.
Duane Bozarth
I'd be interested to see the hybrid data for those--that's far different
than US hybrids. Who are the seed suppliers and do they have web
presence? Are these produced by the US equivalent of the land-grant
universities research programs as were/are many of the new varieties
here or by commercial seed growers?
I don't recall <ever> seeing a commercially grown wheat/barley/rye
variety that would be much over 3 ft, even going back to old Turkey Red,
the original hard red winter wheat brought over in the 1800s. Extremely
tall is bad owing to tendency to go down, of course. Very, very short is
a problem as well owing to difficulty in cutting w/o getting into the
ground or missing the short heads. On the very rare occasion w/ really
high moisture years I can recall some years which may have gotten to
mid-chest height, but that would be the exception, not the rule.
We've been growing wheat and grain sorghum here since the early 1900s
and the pictures back then of harvest w/ teams and stationary thresher
don't show a real significant difference in heights from what I recall
in the 50s when I first can really remember up to now...
Duane Bozarth
>
...
> The only reason corn ethanol is that cheap is because of massive,
> overlapping subsidies on both growing the corn and in processing it for
> ethanol. A recent study found that it takes more energy to produce ethanol
> than the ethanol contains.
Ethanol production subsidies have no bearing on the production cost of
the grain which is currently about $2/bu for feed corn--that used for
ethanol production doesn't need to be that good, even.
The "massive" farm program subsidies are more used for non-production
programs such as school lunch programs and food stamps.
The "study" of which you speak is both out of date in data and
wrong--see
http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/net_energy_balance.html
for a more considered evaluation. Note that Pimental has consistently
not considered the value of the animal feedstock co-product in order to
make his conclusion in all studies I've seen.
Latest DOE studies vary from 1.3 to nearly 2, depending on the actual
processes considered...
Duane Bozarth
Ehanol is cheaper than gasoline at today's prices...
Duane Bozarth
I did--it's hokum.
Duane Bozarth
That would be "citing" and saying something doesn't make it so...
Doug Miller
>Duane Bozarth wrote:
>> Brock Ulfsen wrote:
>>>But Oil may not be a fossil fuel. It may well be left over from the
>>>formation of the solar system.
>
>> What evidence for that is there?
>
>Well, a neutral article covering the basis
>ishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
>
>Or for something a little more in depth:
> Authors: Rasmussen, Birger1
> Source: Geology; Jun2005, Vol. 33 Issue 6, p497-500, 4p
>NAICS/Industry Codes: 4227 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Wholesalers
>Abstract: Petroleum generation largely occurs through the thermal
>decomposition of organic matter.
>petroleum was generated from organic matter that accumulated in marine
>environments, most probably comprising the remains of photosynthetic and
>chemosynthetic organisms, pointing to a sizeable biomass as early as 3.2
In other words... it was *not* "left over from the formation of the solar
system" -- it formed from rotting plants and animal carcasses.
Doug Miller
>
>"Brock Ulfsen" <elfw...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>news:433500f1$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>> used it, we burned it (as opposed to it decaying), its carbon returned to
>> the carbin cycle.
>So where did all the excess "carbin" in the atmosphere come from before we
>started burning petroleum?
There *wasn't* an excess -- precisely because burning wood *is*
carbon-neutral.
Duane Bozarth
The point is synthesized as.
"...However, direct evidence of petroleum generation from potential
source rocks is lacking, ..."
and
"The abundance of bitumen nodules and residual pyrobitnmen in black
shales across the Pilbara craton suggests that hydrocarbon generation
from kerogenous
shales was a common phenomenon during the Middle to Late Archean. The
petroleum was generated from organic matter that accumulated in marine
environments,..."
What is found in these environments is, iow, still organic-based.
Doug Miller
>The occurrence of helium in natural gas deposits is actually sited as
>evidence for the "abiotic oil" theory.
I'd sure like to see an explanation of that. The conventional wisdom is that
helium is formed as a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium and
certain other elements, deep within the earth's crust. We find it in natural
gas deposits, not because of some particular association between helium and
natural gas, but because natural gas deposits are where we happen to drill
into the earth's crust.
Solar Flare
"Brock Ulfsen" <elfw...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:433500f1$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
zenboom
"JoeSixPack" <ol...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:nuYYe.303954$on1.168159@clgrps13...
>
> "Goedjn" <pr...@mail.uri.edu> wrote in message
> news:u5c8j11hefvlgqsem...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>
> >>If I grow one ton of corn and burn it, I am not burning the equivalent
> >>BTU in petroleum based oil. Therfore my energy consumption is carbon
> >>neutral.
> >
> >
> > Your conclusion does not follow from your postulates.
> > This doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, but
> > it does mean that your argument is.
> >
>
> That may be true in theory, but in practice, the CO2 levels in our
> atmosphere will continue to rise. An equilibrium used to exist, before
our
> industrial revolution, where the amount of carbon released by biotic
> respiration and natural fires, was roughly equal to the rate at which the
> earth was able to re-absorb that carbon.
>
> Nowadays we burn carbon in nearly every home and in factories, powerplants
> and transportation vehicles. This orgy of burning carbon is the reason
the
> atmospheric rate of CO2 is rising, not because of the TYPE of carbon fuel
we
> are burning.
>
> "Carbon-neutral" sounds fine, but it's ridiculous to think that
atmospheric
> CO2 will stop rising just because we switch from fossil-carbon fuel to
> biofuel-carbon fuel. The only way to stop that is to stop burning
> carbon-based fuels altogether.
>
alright, then. please explain why you think that is ridiculous ?
JoeSixPack
"zenboom" <?signal.ds?@?bluebottle.com?> wrote in message
news:dh45tn$nms$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Very simple. The atmosphere won't know the difference between fossil fuel or
biofuel. The carbon emissions are the same. Growing more crops for biofuels
won't cause the CO2 to go down, only slow it's rise at best. Most of the
arable land on earth is already covered with vegetation, consuming CO2.
Radically increasing the arable land on earth to supply all the biofuels as
a direct replacement for fossil fuels is not a feasible option for a very
long time.
In-short, "carbon-neutral" doesn't translate into significant CO2 reduction
in the atmosphere.
JoeSixPack
When I heard this idea about 20 years ago,k it was a very fringe idea. Since
then, it has gained credibility, not faded away. That's not the normal
course for "hokum"
Harvard Magazine doesn't seem to agree with you:
http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/030573.html
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php?id=1130&print=1
If you'd bothered to read any of this, the word "hokum" would only occur to
a mindless idiot.
JoeSixPack
"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
news:BBdZe.1179$4u4...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
Both helium and methane are light enough that they would have long ago
escaped into space, had they not been trapped in the earth's crust after
having been formed somewhere below that impervious layer.
Did you ever stop to do a mental calculation of how much organic life would
have had to be buried perfectly below an impervious layer before
decomposition broke down the body mass, to account for all the world's known
petroleum deposits? And after that, how much of the body mass would have
remained buried instead of decomposing into the atmosphere? It seems a lot
more far-fetched to believe the biotic origin theory than the abiotic one,
where those compounds forming deep in the earth and percolating upward. The
chemistry has been verified experimentally to happen at pressures similar to
those found only 100 kms and deeper below the surface. Use some logic and
save your skepticism for the least credible theory, not the most credible
one.