Amount of sunlight
Jim Blair
"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote
>> >From: "Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> (on the questioning of his
>claim that all of the earth has the same annual number of hours of
>daylight):
"David Lloyd-Jones" <dav...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>Jim,
>
>You're cheating. You had made your original claim about sunlight in reply to
>my suggestion that it made more sense to grow energy-impounding plants,
>specifically an appropriately genetically modified corn, in the area where
>there was the most sunlight.
>
>The hours a day that the sun shines is a relevant fact in considering when
>plants switch themselves on and off, but this is not relevant to how much
>energy a corn can impound. For this you have to look at the amount of
>sunlight available -- and here your claim that it's the same everywhere is
>just nonsense. Measuring "amount of sunlight" in hours is as silly as
>measuring water-flow in minutes, without regard to how big the pipe is or
>what the water pressure might be.
Hi,
Sorry if my statement was misunderstood. I was considering annual hours
of daylight, which are about the same everywhere. I avoided the term
"sunlight" since cloud cover varies considerably.
You are correct that in theory at least, the total solar energy should be
the limiting factor in carbohydrate production, and that should favor the
tropics.
However I don't see any evidence that it is (I could be wrong on this, I
just don't know of any evidence). I am adding 2 additional newsgroups to
this reply in the hope that readers there will provide some information.
And I see several counter examples: the high productivity of the Antarctic
Ocean and of the Bearing Sea, and the very large vegetables that they grow
in gardens in Alaska. The tropical oceans have rather low productivity,
on average, even with the populations of pretty fish around coral reefs.
Several factors here more than off set the solar energy factor.
dlj:
>
>You also claimed that "Note also that the Anarctic (sic) Ocean has the
>highest productivity of any ocean." Cute. The bottoms of all seas seem to be
>roughly as productive -- but since most of the world's "oceans" consist of
>water that is neither at the productive bottom, nor at the productive
>surface, you are reasonably close to correct. While still being utterly
>irrelevant.
>
>My guess would be that other shallow seas, like the Grand Banks, the English
>Channel, or any continental shelf, would be more productive than the Arctic
>Ocean if not fished nor polluted.
>
> -dlj.
I won't bore readers with the reasons why polar oceans tend to be more
productive than tropical oceans. But aren't the mid-lattitude lands also
generally more productive than the tropics? I mean in terms of
carbohydrate production or CO2 uptake per year??
At any rate, corn grows pretty well in Iowa and Illinois, and if the USA
is going to try bio-mass as a fuel, ethanol from corn is a likely choice.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Bob M
of solar energy during the growing season--the days are very long during the
summer. Viewed that way, these vegetables do not seem to be counterexamples.
Bob M
of solar energy during the growing season--the days are very long during the
summer. Viewed that way, these vegetables do not seem to be counterexamples.
Bob M
of solar energy during the growing season--the days are very long during the
summer. Viewed that way, these vegetables do not seem to be counterexamples.
Bob M
would be taken as true; I had an error message on sending it, so decided to try again
and AGAIN.
Chuck Robinson
"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:9oap4h$iq0$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
I think it would be more correct If you included growing season as one of
your parameters. And, you should also include the growing degree days or
heat units of the particuilar crop.
Sunlight hours can be measured and the correct measurement term is the
"Langley". Clouds do affect the values received. Langleys do track crop
productivity quite well especially if influence from other variables such as
water nutrition etc. are minimized. I've studied data from irrigated test
areas with the same crops grown over several years. The yields closely
correlated to the seasonal Langley totals. (I guess one now could blame it
on the clouds instead of a lack of rainfall)
> You are correct that in theory at least, the total solar energy should be
> the limiting factor in carbohydrate production, and that should favor the
> tropics.
>
>
> However I don't see any evidence that it is (I could be wrong on this, I
> just don't know of any evidence). I am adding 2 additional newsgroups to
> this reply in the hope that readers there will provide some information.
>
> And I see several counter examples: the high productivity of the Antarctic
> Ocean and of the Bearing Sea, and the very large vegetables that they grow
> in gardens in Alaska. The tropical oceans have rather low productivity,
> on average, even with the populations of pretty fish around coral reefs.
> Several factors here more than off set the solar energy factor.
>
Alaska=Large tomato with short growing season
Equador, tropical=many smaller tomatoes with long growing season
duhhh
However, you must also measure total vegetative growth over a given area for
the entire growing season. And don't forget Oceans have long growing seasons
due to temperature moderation.
CWR
> dlj:
> >
> >You also claimed that "Note also that the Anarctic (sic) Ocean has the
> >highest productivity of any ocean." Cute. The bottoms of all seas seem to
be
> >roughly as productive -- but since most of the world's "oceans" consist
of
> >water that is neither at the productive bottom, nor at the productive
> >surface, you are reasonably close to correct. While still being utterly
> >irrelevant.
> >
> >My guess would be that other shallow seas, like the Grand Banks, the
English
> >Channel, or any continental shelf, would be more productive than the
Arctic
> >Ocean if not fished nor polluted.
> >
> > -dlj.
>
> I won't bore readers with the reasons why polar oceans tend to be more
> productive than tropical oceans. But aren't the mid-lattitude lands also
> generally more productive than the tropics? I mean in terms of
> carbohydrate production or CO2 uptake per year??
>
Very broad statements with too many variables not considered. For example,
what about the Gobi desert.
> At any rate, corn grows pretty well in Iowa and Illinois, and if the USA
> is going to try bio-mass as a fuel, ethanol from corn is a likely choice.
>
Corn cobs are an efficient fuel too.
CWR
Jim Blair
>Regarding the Alaska vegetable counterexample, Alaskan vegetables get quite a bit
>of solar energy during the growing season--the days are very long during the
>summer. Viewed that way, these vegetables do not seem to be counterexamples.
Hi,
I mean that both the ocean productivity and the Alaskan vegetables are
counter examples to the claim by dlj that productivity is (or at least
SHOULD BE ;-) higher in the tropics where solar energy intensity is
greater.
>Jim Blair wrote:
>
>> You are correct that in theory at least, the total solar energy should be
>> the limiting factor in carbohydrate production, and that should favor the
>> tropics.
>>
>> However I don't see any evidence that it is (I could be wrong on this, I
>> just don't know of any evidence). I am adding 2 additional newsgroups to
>> this reply in the hope that readers there will provide some information.
>>
>> And I see several counter examples: the high productivity of the Antarctic
>> Ocean and of the Bearing Sea, and the very large vegetables that they grow
>> in gardens in Alaska.
>
Bob M
gardens is not likely to be well-represented by what they produce during the summer
when the sun shines all day.
Gordon Couger
> Bob M <x...@xyz.xyz> wrote:
>
> >Regarding the Alaska vegetable counterexample, Alaskan vegetables get
quite a bit
> >of solar energy during the growing season--the days are very long during
the
> >summer. Viewed that way, these vegetables do not seem to be
counterexamples.
>
> Hi,
>
> I mean that both the ocean productivity and the Alaskan vegetables are
> counter examples to the claim by dlj that productivity is (or at least
> SHOULD BE ;-) higher in the tropics where solar energy intensity is
> greater.
>
mean more productivity some plant such as cotton also need the temperature
to be above a certain point and other below a certain point. Sun light is
only one of several variables that influences plant growth.
Wheat does reasonably well in cloudy weather especially in the latter part
of it's life and water melons do lousy if it does not have hot sunny weather
as it ripens. So you can't generalize about sunlight and crop growth.
--
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Gordon Couger
"Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote in message
news:3ba916ae$1...@nntp.corridor.net...
>
<snip>
> Corn cobs are an efficient fuel too.
>
Oz
>You are correct that in theory at least, the total solar energy should be
>the limiting factor in carbohydrate production, and that should favor the
>tropics.
I don't think it is as simple as this.
Firstly under most conditions it's not sunlight that is limiting.
If it were them pest and disease control would immediately produce very
high yields, and this almost never happens. Often one or more plant
nutrients are limiting, water may be limiting or in excess (often both
during the course of a season) and there are other more minor factors.
Secondly people forget that plants respire. They respire more at high
temperatures than at low temperatures. So a tropical climate with high
day and night temperatures will have higher catabolic losses than a
temperate climate (which often has low night temperatures as well). This
is quite marked even in the UK where yields of cereals in ideal areas
rises steadily the further north you go. The long summer daylength and
modest temperatures with cool nights found around inverness gives the
record yields for wheat in the UK of over 13T/Ha (around 12,000 lb/ac).
For temperate and continental areas I would expect a longer growing
season to be the critical factor in increasing biomass production
assuming water and nutrients are not limiting.
I don't know enough about tropical plants to comment further except to
say that the figures I have seen suggest air temperatures (and sunlight
heats leaves, sometimes significantly) over 30C results in a reduction
in net photosynthesis even for tropical plants and temperatures over 25C
for temperate ones. This may be important.
--
Oz
This post is worth precisely what you paid for it.
Jim Blair
"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
>> Sorry if my statement was misunderstood. I was considering annual hours
>> of daylight, which are about the same everywhere. I avoided the term
>> "sunlight" since cloud cover varies considerably.
"Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote:
>
>I think it would be more correct If you included growing season as one of
>your parameters. And, you should also include the growing degree days or
>heat units of the particuilar crop.
Hi,
To be fair to dlj, the annual growth should be compared for different
lattitudes. Sure gardens in Alaska do just fine during their summer
growing season with its looong days. I spent about 125 hours in Fairbanks
in early July and it was all one "day": the place never got dark. But
during the winter how much can they grow? The tropical "growing season"
is 365 days long, but in spite of that I think annual plant production is
lower than in Iowa or even Wisconsin.
>
>Sunlight hours can be measured and the correct measurement term is the
>"Langley". Clouds do affect the values received. Langleys do track crop
>productivity quite well especially if influence from other variables such as
>water nutrition etc. are minimized. I've studied data from irrigated test
>areas with the same crops grown over several years. The yields closely
>correlated to the seasonal Langley totals. (I guess one now could blame it
>on the clouds instead of a lack of rainfall)
So any reference to data on annual Langleys vs lattitude? And if
different crops plot as different Langly vs yield curves, do tropical
crops require more Langleys per unit of CO2 uptake? Does the Langley
incorporate both time of solar exposure and intensity of solar energy?
Does the angle of the sun play much of a role? I mean if sunflowers
track the sun as it moves across the sky (or so I hear), then the angle of
the sun above the horizon would matter less.
jeb:
>
>> You are correct that in theory at least, the total solar energy should be
>> the limiting factor in carbohydrate production, and that should favor the
>> tropics.
>>
>>
>> However I don't see any evidence that it is (I could be wrong on this, I
>> just don't know of any evidence). I am adding 2 additional newsgroups to
>> this reply in the hope that readers there will provide some information.
And it looks like I was correct on this. Several new posters who likley
picked this up outside of sci.econ have added important insights.
>Alaska=Large tomato with short growing season
>Equador, tropical=many smaller tomatoes with long growing season
>duhhh
But do you get more pounds of tomatoes in year from a garden in Alaska or
from a garden of equal size in the tropics? Actually I have never seen
tomatoes grown in the tropics. Friends in St. Croix grow a lot of
mangoes, papaya, oranges, grapefruit, avacadoes, and some oakra. But no
tomatoes.
>
>However, you must also measure total vegetative growth over a given area for
>the entire growing season.....
I say entire year. The longer growing season is a + for the tropics.
>... And don't forget Oceans have long growing seasons
>due to temperature moderation.
>
>CWR
??? Doesn't phytoplankton shut down during the dark season near the poles?
The Antarctic Ocean has high productivity because of the upwelling, and
the tropical oceans have low productivity mostly because of
stratification.
>..... For example,
>what about the Gobi desert.
Or the US southwest? Sure many factors are important to plant growth.
Solar energy is only one factor out of many. Which was my point.
jeb:
>> At any rate, corn grows pretty well in Iowa and Illinois, and if the USA
>> is going to try bio-mass as a fuel, ethanol from corn is a likely choice.
>>
>
>Corn cobs are an efficient fuel too.
>
>CWR
>
I forgot about the cobs. Are they converted to ethanol also? Or burned as
cellulose?
Chuck Robinson
>
> >> Sorry if my statement was misunderstood. I was considering annual
hours
> >> of daylight, which are about the same everywhere. I avoided the term
> >> "sunlight" since cloud cover varies considerably.
>
> "Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >I think it would be more correct If you included growing season as one of
> >your parameters. And, you should also include the growing degree days or
>
> Hi,
>
> To be fair to dlj, the annual growth should be compared for different
> growing season with its looong days. I spent about 125 hours in Fairbanks
> in early July and it was all one "day": the place never got dark. But
> during the winter how much can they grow? The tropical "growing season"
> is 365 days long, but in spite of that I think annual plant production is
> lower than in Iowa or even Wisconsin.
>
Consider Langleys to be the measurement of the photons the plant uses in the
photosynthetic process. Incidentally the USAF measures them at most of
their major weather stations over the globe and maybe NOAA also has the
data. Unfortunately I was unable to get access to the data in the 70's and
rather than expel effort not germane to my job I let further studies slide
by. Hopefully it may be more available today.
Lets call the Langley units Ls and Photosynthesis Ps.
Ls can be disrupted by clouds and supposedly the atmosphere. So angle does
play a factor. Perhaps better than looking at one plant perhaps you should
look at the total photons available annually for Ps. That would take all
other variables out of the equation. If you can find the data please let me
know where you obtained it.
>
> >
> >Sunlight hours can be measured and the correct measurement term is the
> >"Langley". Clouds do affect the values received. Langleys do track crop
> >productivity quite well especially if influence from other variables such
as
> >water nutrition etc. are minimized. I've studied data from irrigated
test
> >areas with the same crops grown over several years. The yields closely
> >correlated to the seasonal Langley totals. (I guess one now could blame
it
> >on the clouds instead of a lack of rainfall)
>
> So any reference to data on annual Langleys vs lattitude?
Logically annual totals should be similar. However, just make it more
complex, I think altitude also plays a factor in the plants availability to
access of the photons.
(This could have some merit for research studies and advanced degrees)
> And if different crops plot as different Langley vs. yield curves, do
tropical
> crops require more Langleys per unit of CO2 uptake?
???? good question, no answer.
> Does the Langley incorporate both time of solar exposure and intensity of
solar energy?
As I stated above, consider Langleys to be the measurement of the photons
the plant uses in the photosynthetic process.
> Does the angle of the sun play much of a role? I mean if sunflowers
> track the sun as it moves across the sky (or so I hear), then the angle of
> the sun above the horizon would matter less.
Sunflower tracking is a Phototropic response. Alike roots grow downward
stems grow upward. Look at house plants and observe that their foliage is
commonly aligned toward the windows. Unless your in my mother's home where
she turns every plant each and every few days.
>
> jeb:
> >
> >> You are correct that in theory at least, the total solar energy should
be
> >> the limiting factor in carbohydrate production, and that should favor
the
> >> tropics.
> >>
> >>
> >> However I don't see any evidence that it is (I could be wrong on this,
I
> >> just don't know of any evidence). I am adding 2 additional newsgroups
to
> >> this reply in the hope that readers there will provide some
information.
>
> And it looks like I was correct on this. Several new posters who likley
> picked this up outside of sci.econ have added important insights.
>
>
>
> >Alaska=Large tomato with short growing season
> >Ecuador, tropical=many smaller tomatoes with long growing season
> >duhhh
>
> But do you get more pounds of tomatoes in year from a garden in Alaska or
> from a garden of equal size in the tropics?
Look at more than fruit response look at the total plants production. I've
received three tomatoes from a friend who grew them in Alaska. He stated
they were average size and were picked still slightly green. They weighed
over 5 lbs each.
In Colombia I observed the same Marion variety of tomato growing as a woody
vine that was more than three years old and still producing the same
baseball sized fruit as we have here. According to my sister-in-law they
produced it year around.
Actually I have never seen
> tomatoes grown in the tropics. Friends in St. Croix grow a lot of
> mangoes, papaya, oranges, grapefruit, avocadoes, and some okra. But no
> tomatoes.
>
> >
> >However, you must also measure total vegetative growth over a given area
for
> >the entire growing season.....
>
> I say entire year. The longer growing season is a + for the tropics.
>
>
> >... And don't forget Oceans have long growing seasons
> >due to temperature moderation.
> >
> >CWR
>
> ??? Doesn't phytoplankton shut down during the dark season near the poles?
They need light to grow!
>
> The Antarctic Ocean has high productivity because of the upwelling, and
> the tropical oceans have low productivity mostly because of
> stratification.
>
> >..... For example,
> >what about the Gobi desert.
>
> Or the US southwest? Sure many factors are important to plant growth.
> Solar energy is only one factor out of many. Which was my point.
>
Ever seen irrigated corn in the Southwestern US? Any crop needs all factors
to produce. Their differences are due to adaptation. Cactus grows great in
Arizona but have you ever seen those same varieties common to a Florida
swamp.
> jeb:
> >> At any rate, corn grows pretty well in Iowa and Illinois, and if the
USA
> >> is going to try bio-mass as a fuel, ethanol from corn is a likely
choice.
> >>
> >
> >Corn cobs are an efficient fuel too.
> >
> >CWR
> >
> I forgot about the cobs. Are they converted to ethanol also? Or burned as
> cellulose?
>
Saw them used as fuel in clay stoves in Mexico. they're almost pure
cellulose. And they burn quite hot too.
Chuck
Incidentally, I have a son that lives in Madison and graduated from U Wisc.
He's employed by one of the banks.
Oz
>Logically annual totals should be similar. However, just make it more
>complex, I think altitude also plays a factor in the plants availability to
>access of the photons.
>(This could have some merit for research studies and advanced degrees)
This is not true per unit area. There is more sunlight (excluding clouds
etc) incident per unit area in the tropics than at higher latitude. It's
simple geometry.
Gordon Couger
"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Nk3+Q4AI...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> Chuck Robinson writes
>
> >Logically annual totals should be similar. However, just make it more
> >complex, I think altitude also plays a factor in the plants availability
to
> >access of the photons.
> >(This could have some merit for research studies and advanced degrees)
>
> This is not true per unit area. There is more sunlight (excluding clouds
> etc) incident per unit area in the tropics than at higher latitude. It's
> simple geometry.
If there are ample supplies of everything else I was always told that north
south rows will produce a little more a little more than east west rows if
you can keep the sand from stunting the N/S rows. The times I tried it
seemed to be the case.
It is very seldom that all things are the same even from one end of the
feild to the other. When we took soil samples on 1 food spacing we found
that the fertility varied on a 3 foot grid or less. in reasonably uniform
soil. We laid it off to being distributed by the tillage tools.
Chuck Robinson
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:ytFq7.44$wF5....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Nk3+Q4AI...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> > Chuck Robinson writes
> >
> > >Logically annual totals should be similar. However, just make it more
> > >complex, I think altitude also plays a factor in the plants
availability
> to
> > >access of the photons.
> > >(This could have some merit for research studies and advanced degrees)
> >
> > This is not true per unit area. There is more sunlight (excluding clouds
> > etc) incident per unit area in the tropics than at higher latitude. It's
> > simple geometry.
>
Altitude has something to do with the number of effective photons arriving
at the plant surface. I seem to remember there was some research done on
this in the early to mid '70's.
> If there are ample supplies of everything else I was always told that
north
> south rows will produce a little more a little more than east west rows if
> you can keep the sand from stunting the N/S rows. The times I tried it
> seemed to be the case.
>
> It is very seldom that all things are the same even from one end of the
> feild to the other. When we took soil samples on 1 food spacing we found
> that the fertility varied on a 3 foot grid or less. in reasonably uniform
> soil. We laid it off to being distributed by the tillage tools.
> --
Two years ago, we ran a sampling survey and found that individual sample
probing's taken as close as two inches apart could vary drastically in their
nutrient content. This is why the number of probings taken on a grid or on
an entire field is a critical factor. This is one case where more is
better. Core diameter has, for some unknown reason, little significance on
test values (0.5" vs. 1.0" cores). But Depth consistency does (nutrient
stratification). Depth control is absolutely critical in no-till sampling.
We also found that a minimum of 10 and preferably 12 to 15 sample probings
was necessary to normalize the sample results. Interestingly we found that
grid sampling had great precision but little accuracy. Many grid sampling
programs have as few as 4 sample probings taken per gridpoint. I know of a
"contractor" that takes only ONE probing per grid point.
CWR
Jim Blair
...
>
>Secondly people forget that plants respire. They respire more at high
>temperatures than at low temperatures. So a tropical climate with high
>day and night temperatures will have higher catabolic losses than a
>temperate climate (which often has low night temperatures as well). This
>is quite marked even in the UK where yields of cereals in ideal areas
>rises steadily the further north you go. The long summer daylength and
>modest temperatures with cool nights found around inverness gives the
>record yields for wheat in the UK of over 13T/Ha (around 12,000 lb/ac).
Hi,
This is also what I thought. Tropical plants tend to have both high
growth/CO2 uptake rates and high respiration rates. Thus the tropics have
a high turnover of CO2 but relatively low product output. So we get
coffee, spices, and some fruits from the tropics, but the grains that
provide most of our energy come from the more temperate lattitudes.
>--
>Oz
>This post is worth precisely what you paid for it.
I thought it was very instructive.
Oz
>So we get
>coffee, spices, and some fruits from the tropics, but the grains that
>provide most of our energy come from the more temperate lattitudes.
Not forgetting rice of course. However my understanding is that rice is
relatively low yielding compared to a good temperate cereal crop
although you can have two or three crops a year.
I'm also not sure what yields of maize you would get from tropical
climates. Probably two crops a year in some parts perhaps yielding a
total close to 20T/Ha of grain??
Chuck Robinson
> Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ...
> >
> >Secondly people forget that plants respire. They respire more at high
> >temperatures than at low temperatures. So a tropical climate with high
> >day and night temperatures will have higher catabolic losses than a
> >temperate climate (which often has low night temperatures as well). This
> >is quite marked even in the UK where yields of cereals in ideal areas
> >rises steadily the further north you go. The long summer daylength and
> >modest temperatures with cool nights found around inverness gives the
> >record yields for wheat in the UK of over 13T/Ha (around 12,000 lb/ac).
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This is also what I thought. Tropical plants tend to have both high
> growth/CO2 uptake rates and high respiration rates. Thus the tropics have
> a high turnover of CO2 but relatively low product output. So we get
> coffee, spices, and some fruits from the tropics, but the grains that
> provide most of our energy come from the more temperate lattitudes.
>
Again, altitude has an effect on temperature too thus respiration is
effected. Remember there are also mountains that exist between the tropic
of Cancer and Capricorn (Isn't that why it's called the tropics). Too many
generalizations with too many variables.
Chuck
David Lloyd-Jones
"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote
> ..... So we get
> coffee, spices, and some fruits from the tropics, but the grains that
> provide most of our energy come from the more temperate lattitudes.
Jim,
This is an observation about the culture of the temperate zone, not about
the facts of biology and agriculture. North Americans eat the food that
grows in North America. Like duh.
People who live in the tropics find that bananas, cassava, yams -- and a
dozen variants -- grow lustily and supply the carbohydrate calories on which
large populations can thrive. Further, they grow with a lot less trouble
than it takes us to grow those pesky little grains.
-dlj.
Gordon Couger
I don't know the actual protocol they used to get the distribution of
nutrients. I went back and looked at the paper and the spacing was 100 mm
not one foot. I am sure it was more than one sample per point but it would
be difficult to get many samples per point. I am sure glad I was not the
grad student getting the samples in the clay soils:)
Gordon
Oz
>This is an observation about the culture of the temperate zone, not about
>the facts of biology and agriculture. North Americans eat the food that
>grows in North America. Like duh.
>
>People who live in the tropics find that bananas, cassava, yams -- and a
>dozen variants -- grow lustily and supply the carbohydrate calories on which
>large populations can thrive. Further, they grow with a lot less trouble
>than it takes us to grow those pesky little grains.
Not a lot of exportable surplus though, which suggests less than
astronomic yields.
Consider palm oil and rice perhaps.
Oz
>Again, altitude has an effect on temperature too thus respiration is
>effected.
Correct.
>Remember there are also mountains that exist between the tropic
>of Cancer and Capricorn (Isn't that why it's called the tropics). Too many
>generalizations with too many variables.
Unfortunately elevated areas in the tropics are typically either steep
mountains or very arid. Neither are ideal for crop or biomass production
and the forest in these areas is more-or-less CO2 neutral.
David Lloyd-Jones
> David Lloyd-Jones writes
>
> >This is an observation about the culture of the temperate zone, not about
> >the facts of biology and agriculture. North Americans eat the food that
> >grows in North America. Like duh.
> >
> >People who live in the tropics find that bananas, cassava, yams -- and a
> >dozen variants -- grow lustily and supply the carbohydrate calories on
which
> >large populations can thrive. Further, they grow with a lot less trouble
> >than it takes us to grow those pesky little grains.
>
> Not a lot of exportable surplus though, which suggests less than
> astronomic yields.
Oz,
Perfectly true -- though for the last couple of years I have had fu-fuu at
my local Nigerian restaurant, and can buy the powder at a somewhat more
distant grocery store. The lack of exports is for lack of market, not for
lack of the productivity of tropical fields.
> Consider palm oil and rice perhaps.
Palm oil has done quite nicely during the period maybe 1920~1970 or so. Then
it was found to be one of the major elements in the Western heart disease
epidemic, so we ate less and less of it quite quickly once that was found
out. I don't think there's any palm oil left in the Western diet outside of
a few candy bars.
I have never thought of rice as tropical. Maybe you can correct me, or tell
me what you have in mind.
My main impression about rice is its extreme sensitivity to taste-driven
market conditions. Time after time the various Rockerfeller labs keep coming
up with a newer and better, more nutritious and more fertile, rice -- and
unfailingly the peoples of Vietnam, Mexico, Indonesia, wherever, say "Let me
see if I can get my poor benighted pigs to eat this dreck."
Cheers,
-dlj.
Gordon Couger
problems. Poor soils, long droughts, bugs and unfriendly revolutions.
Irrigated deserts seem to be the best. In the desert the bugs aren't too bad
and the soils don't get used up by stuff growing all the time and you have
water only when you want it. That's a really nice way to farm when you can
count on the weather even if it is dry all the time.
Gordon
David Lloyd-Jones
> I know a few guys that have farmed in the tropics and there are lots of
> problems. Poor soils, long droughts, bugs and unfriendly revolutions.
> Irrigated deserts seem to be the best. In the desert the bugs aren't too
bad
> and the soils don't get used up by stuff growing all the time and you have
> water only when you want it. That's a really nice way to farm when you can
> count on the weather even if it is dry all the time.
Gordon,
One word: ants.
I think I may have run across in one of the book reviews of Wilson's superb
book. "Ants," written by some guy who tried to grow an English allotment
vegetable garden in Kenya or Uganda. The beasts just lurked there as his
greens grew, and he began to crow to everybody over gin about how their
predictions of failure had come to nothing. And then, like the Russians at
Stalingrad, they came from nowhere and obliterated his position.
In my original discussion with Jim I had posited a genetically engineered
corn, or other plant, optimized for impoundment of oncoming solar flux. I
did like the post somebody made about north-south vs. east-west rows: how
you catch the sunlight, how you arrange your leaves, is a major issue for
the average ambitious equatorial plant: maybe it wouldn't be corn. Can
Nigerians learn to grow yams the way they grow 1.5 ton pumpkins in Iowa? Or
maybe a consistent straight row of twenty-pounders?
My guess would be yes*. I don't think the ethanol gambit has really been
tried yet.
-dlj.
* With adequate genetic engineering, we could possibly teach the little
buggers to stick all the water back in their roots just before harvest
time...
** For extra credit and an easy Nobel, make the roots host bacteria which
will fix nitrogen..... Me? Hey-yull, I still haven't figgered out how my cat
can tell breeds of ants apart.
-d.
Oz
>
>Palm oil has done quite nicely during the period maybe 1920~1970 or so. Then
>it was found to be one of the major elements in the Western heart disease
>epidemic, so we ate less and less of it quite quickly once that was found
>out. I don't think there's any palm oil left in the Western diet outside of
>a few candy bars.
It's a major oil on the world market and is still used for human
consumption worldwide.
>I have never thought of rice as tropical. Maybe you can correct me, or tell
>me what you have in mind.
It's grown all over the tropics. This makes it tropical in my book.
>My main impression about rice is its extreme sensitivity to taste-driven
>market conditions. Time after time the various Rockerfeller labs keep coming
>up with a newer and better, more nutritious and more fertile, rice -- and
>unfailingly the peoples of Vietnam, Mexico, Indonesia, wherever, say "Let me
It's a major food for much of the world's population.
Gordon Couger
wasn't worth exporting. How bad palm oil is for your and how good a hatchet
job we have done on it is open to question.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
"David Lloyd-Jones" <dav...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:lLZq7.37615$Zb4.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
but there is one almost any where you look if you can pull it off. Their
situation is that desperate.
Gordon
Chuck Robinson
> David Lloyd-Jones writes
> >
> >Palm oil has done quite nicely during the period maybe 1920~1970 or so.
Then
> >it was found to be one of the major elements in the Western heart disease
> >epidemic, so we ate less and less of it quite quickly once that was found
> >out. I don't think there's any palm oil left in the Western diet outside
of
> >a few candy bars.
>
> It's a major oil on the world market and is still used for human
> consumption worldwide.
>
> >I have never thought of rice as tropical. Maybe you can correct me, or
tell
> >me what you have in mind.
>
> It's grown all over the tropics. This makes it tropical in my book.
>
One would hardly call Arkansas, Missouri, or East Texas tropical except
maybe in mid summer. Rice has also been grown in Iowa and Minnesota. Would
you term China tropical?
> >My main impression about rice is its extreme sensitivity to taste-driven
> >market conditions. Time after time the various Rockerfeller labs keep
coming
> >up with a newer and better, more nutritious and more fertile, rice -- and
> >unfailingly the peoples of Vietnam, Mexico, Indonesia, wherever, say "Let
me
>
> It's a major food for much of the world's population.
Agreed, but then it is also an ingredient in dogfood.
CWR
Oz
>
>One would hardly call Arkansas, Missouri, or East Texas tropical except
>maybe in mid summer. Rice has also been grown in Iowa and Minnesota. Would
>you term China tropical?
I would certainly class indonesia as tropical, wouldn't you?
Maize can be grown in britain, but I wouldn't describe it as a typical
plant for latitudes above 45deg!
>> >My main impression about rice is its extreme sensitivity to taste-driven
>> >market conditions. Time after time the various Rockerfeller labs keep
>coming
>> >up with a newer and better, more nutritious and more fertile, rice -- and
>> >unfailingly the peoples of Vietnam, Mexico, Indonesia, wherever, say "Let
>me
>>
>> It's a major food for much of the world's population.
>
>Agreed, but then it is also an ingredient in dogfood.
So is meat. Your point being?
David Lloyd-Jones
>
> Agreed, but then it is also an ingredient in dogfood.
>
And Budweiser. So that's why the damn dog loves the stuff...
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote
> It's a major oil on the world market and is still used for human
> consumption worldwide.
Used for soap. No longer used in food AFIK.
> >I have never thought of rice as tropical. Maybe you can correct me, or
tell
> >me what you have in mind.
>
> It's grown all over the tropics. This makes it tropical in my book.
Where, fer instance?
> >My main impression about rice is its extreme sensitivity to taste-driven
> >market conditions. Time after time the various Rockerfeller labs keep
coming
> >up with a newer and better, more nutritious and more fertile, rice -- and
> >unfailingly the peoples of Vietnam, Mexico, Indonesia, wherever, say "Let
me
>
> It's a major food for much of the world's population.
Yes. But not a hell of a lot of people live in the tropics. Bugs get 'em.
-dlj.
vito de lucia
"Renewable Energy: Economic and Environmental Issues"
by David Pimentel, G. Rodrigues, T. Wane, R. Abrams, K. Goldberg, H.
Staecker, E. Ma, L. Brueckner, L. Trovato, C. Chow, U. Govindarajulu,
and S. Boerke
(Originally published in BioScience -- Vol. 44, No. 8, September 1994)
It is not the latest account, so maybe some of you could post a more
up-to-date study, accounting for latest technology developments. In any
case, it seems to me that any alternative energy source poses
alternative problems to be dealt with.
here it goes:
Ethanol. A wide variety of starch and sugar crops, food processing
wastes, and woody materials (Lynd et al. 1991) have been evaluated as
raw materials for ethanol production. In the United States, corn appears
to be the most feasible biomass feedstock in terms of availability and
technology (Pimentel 1991).
The total fossil energy expended to produce 1 liter of ethanol from corn
is 10,200 kcal, but note that 1 liter of ethanol has an energy value of
only 5130 kcal. Thus, there is an energy imbalance causing a net energy
loss. Approximately 53% of the total cost (55¢ per liter) of producing
ethanol in a large, modern plant is for the corn raw material (Pimentel
1991). The total energy inputs for producing ethanol using corn can be
partially offset when the dried distillers grain produced is fed to
livestock. Although the feed value of the dried distillers grain reduces
the total energy inputs by 8 % to 24%, the energy budget remains
negative.
The major energy input in ethanol production, approximately 40% overall,
is fuel needed to run the distillation process (Pimentel 1991). This
fossil energy input contributes to a negative energy balance and
atmospheric pollution. In the production process, special membranes can
separate the ethanol from the so-called beer produced by fermentation.
The most promising systems rely on distillation to bring the ethanol
concentration up to 90%, and selective-membrane processes are used to
further raise the ethanol concentration to 99.5% (Maeda and Kai 1991).
The energy input for this upgrading is approximately 1280 kcal/liter. In
laboratory tests, the total input for producing a liter of ethanol can
potentially be reduced from 10,200 to 6200 kcal by using membranes, but
even then the energy balance remains negative.
Any benefits from ethanol production, including the corn by-products,
are negated by the environmental pollution costs incurred from ethanol
production (Pimentel 1991). Intensive corn production in the United
States causes serious soil erosion and also requires the further
draw-down of groundwater resources. Another environmental problem is
caused by the large quantity of stillage or effluent produced. During
the fermentation process approximately 13 liters of sewage effluent is
produced and placed in the sewage system for each liter of ethanol
produced.
Although ethanol has been advertised as reducing air pollution when
mixed with gasoline or burned as the only fuel, there is no reduction
when the entire production system is considered. Ethanol does release
less carbon monoxide and sulfur oxides than gasoline and diesel fuels.
However, nitrogen oxides, formaldehydes, other aldehydes, and
alcohol--all serious air pollutants-- are associated with the burning of
ethanol as fuel mixture with or without gasoline (Sillman and Samson
1990). Also, the production and use of ethanol fuel contribute to the
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to global warming, because
twice as much fossil energy is burned in ethanol production than is
produced as ethanol.
Ethanol produced from corn clearly is not a renewable energy source. Its
production adds to the depletion of agricultural resources and raises
ethical questions at a time when food supplies must increase to meet the
basic needs of the rapidly growing world population.
Chuck Robinson
"vito de lucia" <v.de...@telematica.it> wrote in message
news:3BAC8C37...@telematica.it...
So much for that. How about a natural by-product, Methanol? We can just
tube up the cows and collect it. Lower the effect on air pollution, lower
depletion to the ozone layer etc., etc., etc., and, if we can, we could also
tube up all politicians we could have a new fleet of hot air ballons for
transportation.
CWR
>
Oz
>
>"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>> It's a major oil on the world market and is still used for human
>> consumption worldwide.
>
>Used for soap. No longer used in food AFIK.
It directly sets the price of canola on the world market and according
to our traders IS used in considerable quantity in much of asia, one of
the main world edible oil importers. It certainly trades at a discount
to canola/soya/corn but it is still used.
>> >I have never thought of rice as tropical. Maybe you can correct me, or
>tell
>> >me what you have in mind.
>>
>> It's grown all over the tropics. This makes it tropical in my book.
>
>Where, fer instance?
Indonesia, in fact all of tropical asia (including india and southern
china). Look at a map.
>> >My main impression about rice is its extreme sensitivity to taste-driven
>> >market conditions. Time after time the various Rockerfeller labs keep
>coming
>> >up with a newer and better, more nutritious and more fertile, rice -- and
>> >unfailingly the peoples of Vietnam, Mexico, Indonesia, wherever, say "Let
>me
>>
>> It's a major food for much of the world's population.
>
>Yes. But not a hell of a lot of people live in the tropics. Bugs get 'em.
There was me thinking india had a large and growing population and that
indonesia had a fast population growth too. Silly me.
vito de lucia
Methanol. Methanol is another potential fuel for internal combustion
engines (Kohl 1990). Various raw materials can be used for methanol
production, including natural gas, coal, wood, and municipal solid
wastes. At present, the primary source of methanol is natural gas. The
major limitation in using biomass for methanol production is the
enormous quantities needed for a plant with suitable economies of scale.
A suitably large methanol plant would require at least 1250 tons of dry
biomass per day for processing (ACTI 1983). More than 150,000 ha of
forest would be needed to supply one plant. Biomass generally is not
available in such enormous quantities from extensive forests and at
acceptable prices (ACTI 1983).
If methanol from biomass (33 quads) were used as a substitute for oil in
the United States, from 250 to 430 million ha of land would be needed to
supply the raw material. This land area is greater than the 162 million
ha of US cropland now in production (USDA 1992). Although methanol
production from biomass may be impractical because of the enormous size
of the conversion plants (Kohl 1990), it is significantly more efficient
than the ethanol production system based on both energy output and
economics (Kohl 1990).
Compared to gasoline and diesel fuel, both methanol and ethanol reduce
the amount of carbon monoxide and sulfur oxide pollutants produced,
however both contribute other major air pollutants such as aldehydes and
alcohol. Air pollutants from these fuels worsen the tropospheric ozone
problem because of the emissions of nitrogen oxides from the richer
mixtures used in the combustion engines (Sillman and Samson 1990).
Actually, an interesting livestock waste recycling process can be found
at www.zeri.org, a foundation promoting small scale networked production
facilities (beer brewery example) and total usage of raw materials (zero
emissions and total throughput).
I found it extremely interesting, and worth posting here.
thanks
ciao
Vto
David Lloyd-Jones
"Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote
> So much for that.
Whaddya mean "so much for that"?
The corn we are looking at is a food product, and the calorie assessments
they are quoting ignore the fact that the actual corn grains have already
paid for the whole show as animal feed or as Jolly Green Giant canned
kernels. Normal average environmentalist cheat-cheat-cheat accounting.
The question is, is the bagasse from the corn a worthwhile source of energy.
I don't know, but it seems likely. Certainly all the studies saying No are
so crooked that one thinks there might be a Yes in there if an honest study
were ever conducted.
-dlj.
Oz
>So much for that. How about a natural by-product, Methanol?
My understanding is that you can, for heating purposes, burn maize
directly and automated household boilers can be bought for precisely
this purpose.
Presumably one could burn then in a powerstation equally well.
I'm also a little surprised by the energy cost for maize as I was under
the impression it delivered 4T/ac fairly easily and pesticide, machinery
and npk usage was rather modest.
Oz
>The question is, is the bagasse from the corn a worthwhile source of energy.
>I don't know, but it seems likely. Certainly all the studies saying No are
>so crooked that one thinks there might be a Yes in there if an honest study
>were ever conducted.
With a small (as I understand it) subsidy the first UK (wheat/barley)
straw powered powerstation goes online this autumn. Consequently I
expect bagasse would be equally acceptable. DM% over 85% required IIRC.
Chuck Robinson
My previous statement was somewhat tongue-in-cheek and referred to the
natural emissions from cattle(flatulence). Animal waste methane production
systems are somewhat less than common in the USA and are used primarily for
on farm use. After the initial investment is recovered, Farmers I know that
are using them found the system to be extremely cost effective. But we're
way off subject here.
CWR
Chuck Robinson
cheek?
CWR
>
>
>
>
>
David Lloyd-Jones
> With a small (as I understand it) subsidy the first UK (wheat/barley)
> straw powered powerstation goes online this autumn. Consequently I
> expect bagasse would be equally acceptable. DM% over 85% required IIRC.
And few people realise how far north the British Isles are!
-dlj.
Chuck Robinson
> Chuck Robinson writes
>
> >So much for that. How about a natural by-product, Methanol?
>
> My understanding is that you can, for heating purposes, burn maize
> directly and automated household boilers can be bought for precisely
> this purpose.
>
several countries. they are pure cellulose.
> Presumably one could burn then in a powerstation equally well.
>
> I'm also a little surprised by the energy cost for maize as I was under
> the impression it delivered 4T/ac fairly easily and pesticide, machinery
> and npk usage was rather modest.
>
OZ
Total stover tonnages average 10-15T/A but good growers can consistently
deliver yields of 30 T/A.
One of the problems I think I am observing is that one must have a PhD to be
quoted or recognized to have productive thought. Otherwise the concept is
denigrated.
The capture of methane from manure was one that arose out of a need. The
idea originally came from a farmer and was later refined by researchers.
Previous to this time, methane escaped from manure into the atmosphere.
Methane use may have, as pointed out, some shortcomings but if allowed to go
to waste it is nothing more than a lost asset.
If I am not mistaken the Ethanol idea also came from a farmer in Kentucky
who was, lets say, familiar with "stills". The by product of the
fermentation process is, and for many years has been, fed to animals. It
is not discarded. Most good farmers use everything they possibly can. In
fact, I know of some using digested dairy manure as food product in hog
processing systems.
Waste not, want not.
CWR
vito de lucia
that the calorie assessment is relating to transformation of corn into
energy, and that gives a negative net balance. If to produce 1 calory of
energy you need 2, it does not matter how much money you can spend on
it, you lose energy anyway.
Please, tell me if I misunderstood your comment.
thanks
ciao
Vito
Gordon Couger
"David Lloyd-Jones" <dav...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1V3r7.38229$Zb4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
engineers I know could find one.
Gordon
Chuck Robinson
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:XY6r7.965$B4.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Gordon,
I think if you look at corn for ethanol production alone you are correct.
However, if you look at it from a viewpoint of an entire system where the
fodder (bagasse), the spent grain, etc., etc., are all utilized to their max
it comes close to matching up. Now take into consideration that fuel will
become more and more scarce, then ethanol becomes a more useful alternative.
The original article quoted also contained quite a few assumptions that were
farmer controllable (eg. erosion).
Chuck
>
vito de lucia
that fuel is necessary to turn corn into fuel (ethanol), and considering
the negative net balance shown in the article (i am open to learn
differently), all the more ethanol does not seem a viable solution....
thanks
ciao
Vito
Chuck Robinson
Plug the corn fodder as a bagasse type fuel into the formula. This would
substantially lower the kcal of fossil fuel expended. Recycle the ruminants
manure back into the field and re-utilize the ethanol production effluent in
irrigation. Then readjust the fertilizer energy costs in their formula.
Capture the water vapor from the distillate for resale or for irrigation,
eliminate or at ,east minimize erosion and back that energy loss out of the
formula, etc., etc.,.
I repeat, the way the formula stands they and you are 100% correct.
However, with a little ingenuity and perserverance the kcal difference
could be minimized and ethanol could be viewed as a renewable resource.
Only negativism stands in the way.
Why are there so many people always willing to shoot down or denigrate
others ideas?
Chuck,
> thanks
> ciao
> Vito
>
vito de lucia
"Why are there so many people always willing to shoot down or denigrate
others ideas?"
What do you mean by that?
I don't see anyone trying to denigrate anything...only trying to discuss
something :--)
In any case, I am going to reflect on what you just wrote, but I like
this way of thinking, networking.....do you know www.zeri.org?
thanks
ciao
Vito
Oz
>Present some that show ethanol is practical. I know non of the agricultural
>engineers I know could find one.
If it's cheaper to burn maize than oil then by definition it must pay to
burn maize rather than oil (if you see what I mean).
However it's VERY energy wasteful to turn oil into food, so all in all
it would be better to eat the maize.
Oz
Even assuming the figures you gave are correct, which I doubt, your
statement simply isn't necessarily true. If (say) it takes one ton of
oil to produce four tons of maize (which I hugely doubt) then the 4T you
get from sunlight (worth about 2 tons of oil) produces energy at half
the cost of oil.
Now if you could explain in detail (say giving the usage of energy for
each input put into a maize crop) we could discuss it further. Since you
didn't I will for the moment consider your figures highly suspect.
vito de lucia
further research. I am finding very intersting facts that turn around
the figures in the article I quoted.
I come back soon when the reaearch brings detailed results.
thanks
ciao
Vito
vito de lucia
http://www.greenfuels.org/energybal.html
Although i'll be further looking, for the sake a comprehensive
information and differentiation of sources, it seems that the article I
quoted in the beginning was out of date or biased.
I would, though, go for the conservative assessment cited in the
referenced info page, considering that "ideal, state-of-the-art"
conditions are not commonly met.
In any case, definitevly good news.
I am very please of yet another confirmation of constructive arguments.
thanks
ciao
Vito
vito de lucia
that.....
Gordon Couger
"Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote in message
news:3bad03f4$1...@nntp.corridor.net...
natural collection point. Gasifying gin trash to dry cotton, using corn cobs
or corn to dry corn and making methane from manure.
The most promising are where fuel is one desirable product of several of the
process. In the case of making methane from manure the reduction of the
stink is of as much value as methane. The same is true of gasifying cotton
gin trash. Of all the operations at a gin getting rid of trash is on of the
most troublesome. I don't know how many nights I have gone out looking for
the burr truck to pull it out or fix it.
I know of several on going projects converting low grade cellulose in to
methanol. If they do prove to be effective the freight on harvesting and
hauling the raw material largely negates the value of the fuel. IMO it would
be more effective to pellet the raw material in the feild and burn it as is.
Trying to convert it from a dry burnable from to handy liquid from is a very
expensive undertaking. If you have a source of waste organic material find a
use for it in that form where it lays don't spend money hauling it around or
converting it into something else. A low tech steam fried electric
generating plant or using it to dry crops makes a lot more sense to me than
trying to turn it into fuel for tractors. Use it to replace fuel some where
else in the chain were it cost the least to do it.
Trying to go up hill in thermodynamics is a very difficult thing to do.
There are special cases where it is worth doing but I think our money is
much better spent on finding ways to reduce tillage in faming rather than
finding substitute fuels. I have seen what no till cotton can do. For years
I laughed at the idea of no till from a cost, compaction and loss of soil
moisture by movement thought the undisturbed soil. My life long beliefs were
wrong.
I quit clean tillage in 1969. Before round up I would spend a couple of days
with hoe instead of trip with sweeps to get the weeds that got by the last
operation. When round up came along I built some of the first hand wick
applicators and would save one or two trips a year with a tractor by spot
treating weedy spots.
By using hand wick applicators I was able to chemically hoe cotton using 1
ounce of round up per acre. I expect I was using several times more round up
than was really needed to do the job but there was no way I could meter the
Round Up any closer and I expect that a good deal more was lost to
evaporation than got on the weed.
We have the technology to build a robot that identifies single weeds from
the air and sent a robot out to find and kill them. We haven't built it yet
but OSU just hired a prof with the experience from military contractors to
do just that. He will be challenged to get it in an affordable package but
at the rate that computer prices are falling it will happen. We could
identify weeds in our first crude non imaging sensors that use 12 bit a/d
converters looking though red and near infrared filters. On the prototype I
worked with after all the noise, mistakes and what have you were taken into
account we were lucky if we got 8 bit resolution.
I was talking to my brother about a farm we used to farm in Tillman county
Oklahoma. It made 50 btu per acre this year. This was one of the worst years
for wheat in that county in history. The summer was so dry that no decent
seed bed could be prepared and the winter was so wet that a lot of wheat
didn't get planted and lot more didn't get fertilized. It rained better the
40 inches after November 1.The guys that farmed it sewed the wheat and
fertilized it with a fertilizer truck and got back on it to top dress in in
the spring. Oddly the sorry side of the farm beat the better side.
I farmed that place and one next to it for a lot of years and it had been
badly eroded. On the best years all I could get was 35 bu per acre and I met
every nutrient need that was called for.
IMO the best answer is not to look for ways to replace fuel but ways not to
use it.
If you are looking for something to replace fuel in tractors look at
anhydrous ammonia. By my calculation it is competitive with 80 cent propane
ay $272 dollars a ton. In addition to using natural gas on make NH4 it can
be made from any source of methane. NH4 can be handled by the same equipment
that handles propane. It is a little tricky to make burn in engines but the
military has been doing it for years. I don't think they have any engines
using it in any current machinery. It also makes no CO2 but it would make
more nitrogen oxides.
You can also get ammonia direct from manure pits. I doubt if it would be
economically feasible but I do know that it can be recovered from at rates
of 1% cheaper than it can be disposed of as hazardous waste.
Gross Heat of Combustion
methane 1007.262 Btu/ft³ @ 60 °F
ammonia 1483.8 BTU/ft3
propane 2516.198 Btu/ft³ @ 60 °
We know how to make NH4 and we know the costs. If we can figure out how to
tap the methane hydrides in the oceans we have even greater reserves of
natural gas than we have today and the know reserves of natural gas are very
considerable.
Spending our efforts trying to solve the same problems that were worked on
50 years ago with no real new technology is a waste of time. The Germans
spent a lot of effort on gasification and ethanol as fuel. Brazil spent a
lot of effort on ethanol as fuel. In the 70's we spent a lot of effort on
ethanol as fuel. Unless some one brings something radically new to the table
you can find out the results you will get from the literature and it is a
waste of time. The higher the price of fuel goes the greater the cost of
fuel in the ethanol and the worse the disparity between the cost of
conventional fuel and ethanol.
I can't understand why people do the same research over and over expecting
for different results when they only have very small incremental
improvements in the process.
Gordon
Chuck Robinson
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
Presently I'm working with a robotics specialist on a GPS controlled robot
system that does a myriad of things. One of them being collecting soil
samples with a new technique that we've already tested and found it to be
incredibly effective and reliable. We have a list of wants and are
envisioning being able to accomplish them within the system. Our only
shortcoming at present is green in color.
I'm not suggesting to do the research over and over until we get another
result. That's called research insanity. What I was referring to was to
refine ALL of the production inputs and to re-utilize the residues. That
would require smaller on site systems. Included would be as you suggested,
fine tuning tillage systems. Using the stover or other straws as bagasse
type fuels. Farms should effectively become self contained systems.
Methane could be produced from the manure and the manure is still available
for spreading as a nutrient source. The ash from the burned stovers still
contains many nutrients and can be used too.
Over the years I have observed a majority of the parts but not any clustered
together to form a system. Most of this is likely due to startup costs and
the lack of overall view. I also believe a farmer or group of farmers will
figure it out before academia.
For example fuel is needed to complete the ethanol process. Methane from
manure is fuel and stover is fuel. No one has ever tried to combine the two
systems. Why?
Chuck,
> Gordon
>
>
>
Gordon Couger
> Gordon Couger writes
>
> >Present some that show ethanol is practical. I know non of the
agricultural
> >engineers I know could find one.
>
> If it's cheaper to burn maize than oil then by definition it must pay to
> burn maize rather than oil (if you see what I mean).
>
> However it's VERY energy wasteful to turn oil into food, so all in all
> it would be better to eat the maize.
>
stove that will burn maize or oil feeding it maize makes the most economic
sense at the price or maize and oil last winter.
The object is to maximize your profits or minimize you losses. No one would
plant corn for fuel but when you have it and is worth 2 bucks a bushel and
heating oil is over a dollar a gallon burning the corn makes more sense then
selling the corn and buying the oil.
It might make sense to burn part of the crop to dry the rest. The low Btu
content of corn and other plant material make drayage an expensive
proposition. But since you have the corn hauled anyway and by using it for
fuel you save having to haul fuel if the price of corn and fuel are
favorable it makes sense to use what ever cost the least. Now government
payments would muddy the waters. So you would probably dry this years corn
with last years crop since it would burn better any way and it would already
have been certified for at least some government payments and the yields
verified.
Hopefully this situation will not continue for any length of time.
It is hard to imagine a time when it is possible to raise fuel as crop.
There are too many ways to reduce the amount of fuel needed for farming and
the petrochemical industry is extremely innovative when the price gets high
enough to make things like things like making natural gas in to something
that can be used for tractor fuel practical. It looks to me like anhydrous
ammonia is completive with conventional fuels right now. It is kind of nasty
to use but you can put it in a tank and haul enough of it around to do some
good.
To my way of thinking using farmland to raise fuel puts us right back to the
age of the horse drawn plow were much of our land is spent raising fuel to
farm the rest. In a world where we have ever more mouths to feed using land
to raise fuel doesn't make sense.
Gordon
Oz
>It might make sense to burn part of the crop to dry the rest.
Hmmm.
Pretty negligible usage I would suggest.
I probably consume about 5000L of diesel in an average year in my drier
each harvest on average to put through about 2500T of crop. That's about
4T or about 10T worth of biomass. We probably produce some 2000T of
straw alone. Even doubling or tripling drying ain't going to make much
difference, is it?
Oz
>
>I know of several on going projects converting low grade cellulose in to
>methanol. If they do prove to be effective the freight on harvesting and
>hauling the raw material largely negates the value of the fuel. IMO it would
>be more effective to pellet the raw material in the feild and burn it as is.
Hmmm.
I'm not sure I agree here *providing* the biomass is:
a) Reasonably dry (85%DM)
b) Can be compacted so that a truck can carry a full load.
c) Reasonably close to a power station.
In the UK where road tax and diesel is absurdly expensive it costs under
(UK currency) 10p/T to travel a mile on a truck (ie that's about what
they charge) taking 30T net. Of that cost I doubt much more than 1p is
in direct fuel cost (ie ex taxes). This would be cheaper on a shuttle,
returning empty.
So to truck about 25T of DM 100m and return would cost about 500 ukp or
a net cost of about 20/T and consume about 2/T worth of diesel or about
10L/T (2.5L/mile per truck or 2MPG so I'm being pessimistic).
Obviously in energy terms to convert a waste material that will be
ploughed in, into a powerstation fuel source, is a good deal.
Financially this doesn't work (for straw) until the price at the farm
reaches at least (UK) 25/T. So to be economic under UK conditions the
price for oil must rise until straw is worth about 50ukp/T delivered.
However a significant part of this haulage cost comprises very high fuel
duties (to reduce fuel usage) and road tax (similarly). So these fuel-
reducing taxes actually add cost making alternative 'sustainable' fuels
uneconomic.
>Trying to convert it from a dry burnable from to handy liquid from is a very
>expensive undertaking.
That in itself isn't an intrinsic problem.
It just means liquid fuels cost more. Whether this is a sensible use is
decided by the market. Take the example above. To ship 1T of biomass to
the powerstation uses about 10L, and even if this 10L 'costs' 20L to
produce you are (roughly) 'spending' 20kg of energy to 'buy' 1000kg.
This is highly economic in fuel terms.
If you were just burning it for heat, then you had better have a very
good reason to use this expensive premium fuel source.
>A low tech steam fried electric
>generating plant or using it to dry crops makes a lot more sense to me than
>trying to turn it into fuel for tractors. Use it to replace fuel some where
>else in the chain were it cost the least to do it.
Don't forget direct oil production either. Were it highly economic to
burn (say) canola in your truck/tractor you can be sure that cheap
additives and some minimal processing would allow them to be used
reliably as a neat product. There would be no point in converting it to
ethanol first.
>We have the technology to build a robot that identifies single weeds from
>the air and sent a robot out to find and kill them.
Computer-controlled hoes that follow the crop are available for sale in
europe. I doubt it will be long before more sophisticated ones are
available. The main problem with this is the VERY slow workrate compared
to spraying. A sprayer with a 24m (75') boom travelling at 10mph can
cover many hundreds of acres a day. A 6m weeder travelling at 5mph will
struggle to do 100.
Worse it's common to apply weedkillers and ither treatments (trace
elements, insecticides, fungicides) at the same time as herbicides so
mechanical weeding is an EXTRA operation and thus tends to *increase*
net fuel usage.
Oz
>Included would be as you suggested,
>fine tuning tillage systems. Using the stover or other straws as bagasse
>type fuels. Farms should effectively become self contained systems.
To be honest I'm not sure this is sensible. Generally farms need tractor
fuel (some sort of liquid) and only rather limited and controllable
general heating sources and even then only for a short time.
What would be more appropriate would be moderate sized powerstations on
some sort of grid. A 50m square comprises some 150,000 acres and if you
obtained just 1/2T/ac average of burnable biomass that still offers
75,000T of fuel. Take 100m square and you are up to 300kT. That's near
1000T burned a day.
Gordon Couger
>
>
> Presently I'm working with a robotics specialist on a GPS controlled robot
> system that does a myriad of things. One of them being collecting soil
> samples with a new technique that we've already tested and found it to be
> incredibly effective and reliable. We have a list of wants and are
> envisioning being able to accomplish them within the system. Our only
> shortcoming at present is green in color.
Is the problem sensing green color or is it a paint problem? If it is a
sensing problem as far as we could tell green reflected light held very
little information about the plant except that one was there. The ratio of
red and near infra red told us a lot more. If it is a paint problem John
Deere can be a PITA.
I have a good deal of experiance with GPS and mapping. If I can be of help
feel free to ask. I may have something on the rack or know of somehting that
can save some time. I also know some fellows that might be inersted in your
robot to mount of their reflected light senesing sprayer to see what they
are really getting on a larger scale than they can get by hand.
If you get into spraying fertilzer or herbicides I have been there and done
that and the work is not tied up to any one. I designed and programed a
working protoype that the university used for 5 years of reasearch. I know
how to make it work and I know what I did wrong and how to make it a lot
better.
>
<snip> >
> > I can't understand why people do the same research over and over
expecting
> > for different results when they only have very small incremental
> > improvements in the process.
> >
>
> I'm not suggesting to do the research over and over until we get another
> result. That's called research insanity.
==========
No but lots of people are on ethonol production. We have a project that is
gasifying switch grass and anarobicly converting the carbon monoxide to
methonyl. Nobody has figured out how to get enough methanol out of the
reactor to keep from killing the bugs. If ethnol is grim this is a real
mess. It might work better if they moved it to a cotton gin near a oil feild
were they had drip gas for a cheap source of heat for the gassifier and had
the gin trash brought to them for free.
Every study I have seen is funded by some one trying to find a use for
something not a source of fuel. They are approching the problem from the
wrong end.
>What I was referring to was to
> refine ALL of the production inputs and to re-utilize the residues. That
> would require smaller on site systems. Included would be as you
suggested,
> fine tuning tillage systems. Using the stover or other straws as bagasse
> type fuels. Farms should effectively become self contained systems.
> Methane could be produced from the manure and the manure is still
available
> for spreading as a nutrient source. The ash from the burned stovers still
> contains many nutrients and can be used too.
================
Your right there. But I find using biomass for fuel problamatical. I have a
problem removeing any more organic matter from the soil than I have to. I
guess I farmed too much 2% orgaic matter sandy land. While I find the
religion of organic farming a joke a lot of what they do is based on good
farming they just are unwilling to retaing the good parts and take on the
good things that are being developed. Returning as much organic material to
the soil is one of the places they are right.
In the case of gin trash, the left overs from sugar cane and such where they
trash is already collected it makes good sense to use it. If you have to go
out and geather it up the economics get kind of tough. I think that methane
from manure is one good solution for manure problems. It preserves the
nitrogen in the manure until it can be spread or injected, stops the smell
and makes a useful product. If some one can design a inexpeisive digester
they might do real well in the near future. I think there is going to be a
lot of pressure on manure processing in the near future. The big problem
with methane from any soruce is storage. The only reasonable way to store it
as a gas and that takes lots of room so you have to produce it pretty much
as you need it.
The problem with small scale system is to get input, production and need all
to match up.
>
> Over the years I have observed a majority of the parts but not any
clustered
> together to form a system. Most of this is likely due to startup costs
and
> the lack of overall view. I also believe a farmer or group of farmers
will
> figure it out before academia.
>
============
Academia solves big problems farmers solve their own problems. Too many
academics make professor and hang their spurs in the chinch and hang on.
Once they find something they ride it for all its worth and then some. And
then commercialize when they retire if not sooner. Not all are this way but
some are. While not all the commercial research is what I would like it to
be it get results and get it on the market where it can do some good.
There was a grad student trying to make a better opener for a grain drill.
He was havening a problem sheading trash I ask him, "you know how John Deere
solves that problem?" Well it turns out he has never looked at the openers
on any grain drill. The guys that designed those openers walked behind them
for years studying them and here is a kid going to make a better one in 18
months.
>
> For example fuel is needed to complete the ethanol process. Methane from
> manure is fuel and stover is fuel. No one has ever tried to combine the
two
> systems. Why?
================= do power plants waste all the heat they produce? No on
looks at the system. They look at a power plant as a place to make
electricity if the combined a cannery, green house and fish farm they could
get 25 or 30% more out of their fuel. It would require some management. I
don't think enough people have a broad enough vision to develop these
projects and when they do the are difficult to fund.
If the would look at ways to efficiently use the energy we have it would
help a lot. Fixing the rail system and stop the cost of 10 cents a mile fuel
cost to move a ton by truck would be a very good start.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
cost ones and that is a long time away.
Not only is mechanical weeding an extra operation it uses a lot of fuel
because of the load. We will never completely get away from tillage but we
can greatly reduce it. Even before herbicides using tools that got all the
weeds would save one or two trip a year.
Saving trips over the field adds up to a lot of money. For years I combined
sowing wheat and seed bed perpetration in one operation by tying the grain
drill behind a chisel or disk. I could sew 100 acre of wheat a day on with 2
people using 80 gallons of fuel or I could use 1 grain drills and spring
tooth harrow and 3 people using 3 tractors burning 150 gallons a day and be
hard pressed to get over 80 acres. Using on tractor my brother would start
at 6 am and I would come out at 2 or 3 in the after noon and go to mid
night. It was a lot easier on the nerves as well.
You have to use a drill with 10 inches or more between the openers or it
won't clear the trash.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
> Gordon Couger writes
>
> >It might make sense to burn part of the crop to dry the rest.
>
> Hmmm.
> Pretty negligible usage I would suggest.
>
> I probably consume about 5000L of diesel in an average year in my drier
> each harvest on average to put through about 2500T of crop. That's about
> 4T or about 10T worth of biomass. We probably produce some 2000T of
> straw alone. Even doubling or tripling drying ain't going to make much
> difference, is it?
>
Gordon
Chuck Robinson
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
>
> "Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote in message
> news:3bad6864$1...@nntp.corridor.net...
> >
> >
> > Presently I'm working with a robotics specialist on a GPS controlled
robot
> > system that does a myriad of things. One of them being collecting soil
> > samples with a new technique that we've already tested and found it to
be
> > incredibly effective and reliable. We have a list of wants and are
> > envisioning being able to accomplish them within the system. Our only
> > shortcoming at present is green in color.
> =================
> Is the problem sensing green color or is it a paint problem? If it is a
> sensing problem as far as we could tell green reflected light held very
> little information about the plant except that one was there. The ratio of
> red and near infra red told us a lot more. If it is a paint problem John
> Deere can be a PITA.
>
> I have a good deal of experiance with GPS and mapping. If I can be of
help
> feel free to ask. I may have something on the rack or know of somehting
that
> can save some time. I also know some fellows that might be inersted in
your
> robot to mount of their reflected light senesing sprayer to see what they
> are really getting on a larger scale than they can get by hand.
>
Thanks I may be calling on you.
> If you get into spraying fertilzer or herbicides I have been there and
done
> that and the work is not tied up to any one. I designed and programed a
> working protoype that the university used for 5 years of reasearch. I know
> how to make it work and I know what I did wrong and how to make it a lot
> better.
>
The robot is going to be obligated to relieving humans of some of the
mundane repetitious chores they are now doing. Especially on gridded
fields.
Remember you still have the ash residue. If you also remember that any
fodder loses all of its water and large amounts of CO2 during decomposition.
Only a very minute portion of the original plant residue remains. Almost as
minute as the ash residue. By the way, No-till answers part of the problem
and rotations another part. Once OM is stabilized and proper no-till
techniques are used any changes in soil OM are negated.
Chuck
David Lloyd-Jones
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote
> Speed is big problem on a weeding robot. The only answer is a lot of low
> cost ones and that is a long time away.
The answer is obviously to use more than one robot. Say tens of thousands of
'em, scampering under the crops, pulling up the weeds the minute they show
enough leaf to be identified.
For gravy, you could equip each robot with a little sword to stab bad bugs
with.
-dlj.
Chuck Robinson
Thirty some years ago I saw a system out of TAMU using microwaves to destroy
both weeds and insects in the soil Yield increases over soil fumigants were
phenomenal. The energy crunch (increased fuel costs) killed the system.
Could come back to life with little robots and mini lasers.
Chuck
>
>
>
Gordon Couger
>
> "Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
> news:ynjr7.33$Yy.4...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >
> > "Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote in message
> > news:3bad6864$1...@nntp.corridor.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Presently I'm working with a robotics specialist on a GPS controlled
> robot
> > > system that does a myriad of things. One of them being collecting
soil
> > > samples with a new technique that we've already tested and found it to
> be
> > > incredibly effective and reliable. We have a list of wants and are
> > > envisioning being able to accomplish them within the system. Our only
> > > shortcoming at present is green in color.
> > =================
> > Is the problem sensing green color or is it a paint problem? If it is a
> > sensing problem as far as we could tell green reflected light held very
> > little information about the plant except that one was there. The ratio
of
> > red and near infra red told us a lot more. If it is a paint problem John
> > Deere can be a PITA.
> >
> Neither The green problem is the one with the presidents pictures on them.
I though that might be the problem after I sent the post. Contact me
privatly and depending where you are in the project I may be able to help
with equipemt loans or show you less expensive ways around some problems.
>
> > I have a good deal of experiance with GPS and mapping. If I can be of
> help
> > feel free to ask. I may have something on the rack or know of somehting
> that
> > can save some time. I also know some fellows that might be inersted in
> your
> > robot to mount of their reflected light senesing sprayer to see what
they
> > are really getting on a larger scale than they can get by hand.
> >
>
> Thanks I may be calling on you.
>
> > If you get into spraying fertilzer or herbicides I have been there and
> done
> > that and the work is not tied up to any one. I designed and programed a
> > working protoype that the university used for 5 years of reasearch. I
know
> > how to make it work and I know what I did wrong and how to make it a lot
> > better.
> >
>
> The robot is going to be obligated to relieving humans of some of the
> mundane repetitious chores they are now doing. Especially on gridded
> fields.
>
> >
> > >
> > <snip> >
> > Your right there. But I find using biomass for fuel problamatical. I
have
> a
> > problem removeing any more organic matter from the soil than I have to.
I
> > guess I farmed too much 2% orgaic matter sandy land. While I find the
> > religion of organic farming a joke a lot of what they do is based on
good
> > farming they just are unwilling to retaing the good parts and take on
the
> > good things that are being developed. Returning as much organic material
> to
> > the soil is one of the places they are right.
> >
> Remember you still have the ash residue. If you also remember that any
> fodder loses all of its water and large amounts of CO2 during
decomposition.
> Only a very minute portion of the original plant residue remains. Almost
as
> minute as the ash residue. By the way, No-till answers part of the
problem
> and rotations another part. Once OM is stabilized and proper no-till
> techniques are used any changes in soil OM are negated.
>
I can still see how much better the wheat did where the brush pile were
burned on a place I cleared in the 70's.
I said I had problems with it but I do see where it is a viable option.
Farming is not a one size fits all solution. I don't think many single
solutions that work for one farmer will work exactly the same for the next
farmer.
In 1979 when it looked like there would never be another poor day I had a
house designed with a detached building for heating and cooling. It was
heated with hot water and the water could be heated by burning, propane, gin
trash or extracting heat from composting gin trash and the air was pre
warmed and cooled by forced siphons using 62 degree water from 22 foot
wells. It in 1980 it didn't rain, interest went 20% and I came down with MS.
Needles to say I didn't build the house.
There are lots of ways to use farm waste we had one plant in Oklahoma that
was making a press board from wheat straw. On the face he would arrange full
stalks of wheat with heads on them and then make up the rest with clean
bright straw. They were really striking paneling. When he retired no one
took up the business. Cotton stalks would make a stronger board.
In an effort to solve their grain dust problem on elevator put in a cube
extruder and turned a liability into 20% range cubes. My gin tried making
compost out of its gin trash. They were not successful marketing it.
There are lot of opportunities but I see most of them were the product is
geatherd up by another process and is either free or costs to get rid of.
But going out and gathering up something that has as low Btu value as ag
waste is hard to make pay.
With our small population and the largest number of acres of farm land of
any country in the world we can probably make ethanol production and soy
bean and cotton seed oil work as major part of our fuel source for this
country. It just doesn't make much sense when we have very large untapped
gas fields and oil fields that are politically off limits because the bunny
huggers don't want them drilling in their back yard.
Gordon Couger
I interviewed with them about taking it to the Rio Grande Valley and doing
cusom work. Timing was very bad for them. At the time there was rationing on
diesel fuel and the thing drank several hundred gallons a day to do less
than a hundred acres of 20 inch bands on 40 inch centers one inch deep.
My advice was to wait until the next year because fuel cost and trying get
fuel was going to really make things a problem. Their cost pre fuel crisis
was 40 dollars and acre and I don't know what the price of deisel was but
put them out of sight price wise. There was no way it would fly commercialy.
I don't think it ever saw light again because the price of diesel never went
back to where it was when the machine was being designed and developed so
the cost per acre would never be competive and there is not much way to
change the power requirments for what they were doing.
It really did work nice though. There was a pass that they had cooked about
2 feet down that had stayed clean for a couple of years.
As to a lot of little robots we are a long way from getting the cost down.
You wouldn't use a sowrd you would use a lasar, zap them with electricity or
squrit them with insecticide. Probably the later because of the power
requirmet and cost.
The little robots would be nice and they wouldn't go sit in the shade at the
far end of the feild where you can't see them from the road.
Gordon
Gordon
>
>
Chuck Robinson
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
That's where the onion studies were conducted. The idea was originally
purchased by Oceanic International out of Dallas. Dr Frank Davis was the
top dog on the idea.
We were good friends but we parted ways when I argued for finding the
optimum wavelength to minimize the power requirement. He wanted to make one
and get it financed. They did but OI ate up most of the money in various
expenses and very little was available for research. That thing was a
monster but it did work.
> My advice was to wait until the next year because fuel cost and trying get
> fuel was going to really make things a problem. Their cost pre fuel crisis
> was 40 dollars and acre and I don't know what the price of deisel was but
> put them out of sight price wise. There was no way it would fly
commercialy.
>
They ended up with per acre fuel costs of $120+. Even the big Florida veg
growers said the total cost needed to be under $100/A. and the effect needed
to last at least 3 yrs. which was the only part they could guarantee.
> I don't think it ever saw light again because the price of diesel never
went
> back to where it was when the machine was being designed and developed so
> the cost per acre would never be competive and there is not much way to
> change the power requirments for what they were doing.
>
As I said, I had argued for finding a more optimum wavelength than the 915
mhz they were using.
> It really did work nice though. There was a pass that they had cooked
about
> 2 feet down that had stayed clean for a couple of years.
>
> As to a lot of little robots we are a long way from getting the cost down.
> You wouldn't use a sowrd you would use a lasar, zap them with electricity
or
> squrit them with insecticide. Probably the later because of the power
> requirmet and cost.
>
> The little robots would be nice and they wouldn't go sit in the shade at
the
> far end of the feild where you can't see them from the road.
>
If the batteries went dead it could always be found at the seasons end with
the cotton picker.
Chuck
> Gordon
>
> Gordon
> >
> >
>
>
David Lloyd-Jones
"Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote
> If the batteries went dead it could always be found at the seasons end
with
> the cotton picker.
Mummy Robot will stroll through the fields just before the snow flies,
picking them all up with her magnet.
In Grey Walter's version, they were all programmed to head for the power
socket exactly when their on-board power source got that low.
The hell with all of this: make 'em solar powered!
-dlj.
Gordon Couger
>
> >
>
> They ended up with per acre fuel costs of $120+. Even the big Florida veg
> growers said the total cost needed to be under $100/A. and the effect
needed
> to last at least 3 yrs. which was the only part they could guarantee.
That was a lot of money in the early 70's.
They must have been treating deeper than the one inch the guys at TA&M were
talking about doing in the valley when I talked to them. They were just
replacing preplant herbicide.
>
> > I don't think it ever saw light again because the price of diesel never
> went
> > back to where it was when the machine was being designed and developed
so
> > the cost per acre would never be competive and there is not much way to
> > change the power requirments for what they were doing.
> >
>
> As I said, I had argued for finding a more optimum wavelength than the 915
> mhz they were using.
I would think 915 MHz would not be the best frequency. But balancing the
penetration into the soil with the heating effect would be cut and try
operation. But not a very difficult on to do. It should be able to be done
in a lab at reasonable power levels.
My guess is they found a source of high power 915 MHz stuff and used it and
never did do much in the way of experiments.
If they do away with all the bromine the old beast might be revived to kill
nematodes.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
The will be working under the canopy in the shade. I'll bet the first one's
run on petroleum based fuels.
Gordon
Chuck Robinson
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
>
> "Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote in message
> news:3bae9f71$1...@nntp.corridor.net...
> >
> > >
> >
> > They ended up with per acre fuel costs of $120+. Even the big Florida
veg
> > growers said the total cost needed to be under $100/A. and the effect
> needed
> > to last at least 3 yrs. which was the only part they could guarantee.
> ============
> That was a lot of money in the early 70's.
>
Fumigation and everything associated with it was expensive too.
> They must have been treating deeper than the one inch the guys at TA&M
were
> talking about doing in the valley when I talked to them. They were just
> replacing preplant herbicide.
> >
The studies in NW Florida were 8" deep and those in Central Fla were 12".
They lowered the in-ground knife bar
> > > I don't think it ever saw light again because the price of diesel
never
> > went
> > > back to where it was when the machine was being designed and developed
> so
> > > the cost per acre would never be competive and there is not much way
to
> > > change the power requirments for what they were doing.
> > >
> >
> > As I said, I had argued for finding a more optimum wavelength than the
915
> > mhz they were using.
>
> I would think 915 MHz would not be the best frequency. But balancing the
> penetration into the soil with the heating effect would be cut and try
> operation. But not a very difficult on to do. It should be able to be done
> in a lab at reasonable power levels.
All of the in lab studies were conducted using Microwave ovens operating at
that time at the 915 mhz freq.
>
> My guess is they found a source of high power 915 MHz stuff and used it
and
> never did do much in the way of experiments.
>
Totally true.
Several years later, in a High School Science project, my daughter ran
similar experiments, but this time, using a 2450 mhz oven. The results
didn't even resemble each other. The higher freq. was much more active.
Most ovens today are at this wavelength.
Gordon Couger
>
>
> Several years later, in a High School Science project, my daughter ran
> similar experiments, but this time, using a 2450 mhz oven. The results
> didn't even resemble each other. The higher freq. was much more active.
> Most ovens today are at this wavelength.
Two point four GHz was hard in the 70's. Magnetrons and klystrons are still
about the only solution for any power. Any kind of amplifier that puts out
the power need by that beast requires a defense budget to build.
For nematodes there should be a lower frequency solution as well. On were
the nematode is about 1/2 length long and soaks up power like an antenna. I
know that the radiation exposure at 145 MHz is lower than other frequencies
for humans because we are about a half wave length long at that frequency. I
think the limit is about half of both higher and lower frequencies.
Gordon
Chuck Robinson
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
I've been told tne reason the microwave ovens work is that the water
molecule H-O-H works alike a rabbit ear antenna capturing the wave and
causing the molecule to oscillate and generate heat. And if I remember
correctly the water molecule dipole moment was a multiple of the mw
frequency.
My daughter used everything from small pigweed seed to large pumpkin seed.
And as they say size was important. The amount of oil contained was also a
factor.
Chuck
> Gordon
>
>
Oz
>I've been told tne reason the microwave ovens work is that the water
>molecule H-O-H works alike a rabbit ear antenna capturing the wave and
>causing the molecule to oscillate and generate heat. And if I remember
>correctly the water molecule dipole moment was a multiple of the mw
>frequency.
That's what people say.
Unfortunately it's wrong. The frequency for this is in the IR.
It's just shaking polarised molecules.
Jim Blair
>It does not look to me that that is the assessment. It seems instead
>that the calorie assessment is relating to transformation of corn into
>energy, and that gives a negative net balance. If to produce 1 calory of
>energy you need 2, it does not matter how much money you can spend on
>it, you lose energy anyway.
>
>Please, tell me if I misunderstood your comment.
>
>thanks
>ciao
>Vito
>
Hi,
If the energy ratio were less than 1.0, you would be correct. But it loks
like you are not. See:
http://www.webconx.com/ethanol.htm
HOW MUCH ENERGY DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE A GALLON OF ETHANOL?
This article concludes that each unit of energy (BTU or Kcal)
invested in corn to ethanol production can produce 1.24 units of
energy as output. But one of the studies cited estimate a return
of 0.42 (that is, getting back only 42% of the energy invested.)
The article suggests that the earlier 1970’s estimates of ethanol
from corn to be an energy sink were because of the lower bushels
per acre yields for corn then.
But today yields are higher and the energy imputs are lower, due in part
to the use of GMO crops. And this does not consider the potential gains
from nitrogen fixing crops. See also:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/mbte.txt
The opponents of ethanol use old data on farming and ignore GMO
corn.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Jim Blair
>About corn burning as energy source, I thought I'd post a quote from
>
>"Renewable Energy: Economic and Environmental Issues"
>by David Pimentel, G. Rodrigues, T. Wane, R. Abrams, K. Goldberg, H.
>Staecker, E. Ma, L. Brueckner, L. Trovato, C. Chow, U. Govindarajulu,
>and S. Boerke
>(Originally published in BioScience -- Vol. 44, No. 8, September 1994)
>
>It is not the latest account, so maybe some of you could post a more
>up-to-date study, accounting for latest technology developments. In any
>case, it seems to me that any alternative energy source poses
>alternative problems to be dealt with.
>here it goes:
Hi,
I noted some things in his article at:
http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/v98n2/mkh-new7.html
He assumes 120 bushels of corn per acre, but the average in Wisconsin last
year was over 140 and some farmers can get over 400 by using GMO corn.
Pimentel uses 19.2 as the average milage for cars, and does not consider
the increased yields and reduced tractor fuel that come from GMO corn.
>The major energy input in ethanol production, approximately 40% overall,
>is fuel needed to run the distillation process (Pimentel 1991).
This sounds VERY high, considering that most of the energy put in to the
evaporation step can be recovered in the condensation step. The
theoretical energy loss is just the heat of mixing of ethanol and water.
(just as the energy loss in the conversion of sea water to fresh water is
just the heat of solution of the salts: the same whether distillation or
freezing is the phase change used)
>....This
>fossil energy input contributes to a negative energy balance and
>atmospheric pollution. In the production process, special membranes can
>separate the ethanol from the so-called beer produced by fermentation.
>The most promising systems rely on distillation to bring the ethanol
>concentration up to 90%, and selective-membrane processes are used to
>further raise the ethanol concentration to 99.5% (Maeda and Kai 1991).
>The energy input for this upgrading is approximately 1280 kcal/liter. In
>laboratory tests, the total input for producing a liter of ethanol can
>potentially be reduced from 10,200 to 6200 kcal by using membranes, but
>even then the energy balance remains negative.
Er, laboratory tests are not likely to effectively recover the energy gain
from condensation (done in a water cooled condensor in MY laboratory ;-)
It takes a large scale operation to do this effectively. But chemical
engineers design large scale operations which make this kind of recovery
all the time and they can get back 90+ percent of theoretical.
>
>Any benefits from ethanol production, including the corn by-products,
>are negated by the environmental pollution costs incurred from ethanol
>production (Pimentel 1991). Intensive corn production in the United
>States causes serious soil erosion and also requires the further
>draw-down of groundwater resources.
Round-Up Ready corn does not require tillage, and so greatly reduces soil
erosion, as well as requiring fewer tractor passes and thus less tractor
fuel. Pimentel just ignores all of this.
Gordon Couger
"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:9otf5m$bm4$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
choice.
Gordon
Jim Blair
>>
>> http://www.webconx.com/ethanol.htm
>>
>> HOW MUCH ENERGY DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE A GALLON OF ETHANOL?
>>
>> This article concludes that each unit of energy (BTU or Kcal)
>> invested in corn to ethanol production can produce 1.24 units of
>> energy as output. But one of the studies cited estimate a return
>> of 0.42 (that is, getting back only 42% of the energy invested.)
>> The article suggests that the earlier 1970's estimates of ethanol
>> from corn to be an energy sink were because of the lower bushels
>> per acre yields for corn then.
>>
>> But today yields are higher and the energy imputs are lower, due in part
>> to the use of GMO crops. And this does not consider the potential gains
>> from nitrogen fixing crops. See also:
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/mbte.txt
>>
>> The opponents of ethanol use old data on farming and ignore GMO
>> corn.
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>>
>Getting 1.24 back is not a very good deal IMO unless you have no other
>choice.
>
>Gordon
Hi,
If a 24% annual return on investment is not good enough for you, look at
the Canadians who say they think they can get a 100% return (twice back
what they put in):
http://www.greenfuels.org/energybal.html
For a discussion of all this see:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/corn.txt
And the way things are going with oil and in the Middle East, we may soon
have no other choice :-(
Jim Blair
>only another consideration though: we still need fossil fuel for
>that.....
>
Hi,
Yes, but IF the energy yield is greater than 1.0 then ethanol can be seen
as a way to extend the energy we get from fossil fuel (oil). We can get
24% more (USDA) or maybe twice (Canadian report) as much enery from each
barrel of oil.
And eventually use the ethanol to produce more ethanol.
Gordon Couger
You discount the cost of labor, management, profit and capital. If I don't
have to cover those I can get rich on a lot less than 24% return.
I think we can do something with natural gas which we have lots of. No one
knows how much there is in the Anadarko basin. When they lease for gas there
they don't even lease the Springer sands that are 25,000 feet. They just
lease the stuff above them. Holes that deep are too expensive to drill. I
don't know what it would takes to make natural gas into propane or butane
but ammonia can be used in diesel engine and by my fighters are competitive
with propane as a fuel. It is nasty stuff to handle but we do it on the farm
all the time. I is liquid in the 200 to 400 psi range and has a but content
half way between natural gas and propane.
Liquefied gas under pressure is not as handy as the stuff you can pour out
of a can but we have been using it for 50 years.
Using crop land to produce fuel is something we can do in the US and
probably much of South America, maybe Canada and Oz the rest of the world
doesn't have the excess of land per capita to pull it off.
The thought that comes to mind using crop land to produce fuel is a cow
sucking herself. Now if you can find ag wastes that can economically be used
that's another story but planting a crop to raise fuel is absurd unless
there is no other choice. Trying to push entropy up hill is very expensive.
Gordon
Oz
>If a 24% annual return on investment is not good enough for you, look at
>the Canadians who say they think they can get a 100% return (twice back
>what they put in):
Maybe. However I have repeatedly asked for a breakdown in the figs but
so far nobody has posted them.
So you will forgive me for doubting them as any reasonable guesstimate
for europe gives figs over 100%.
Oz
>
>The thought that comes to mind using crop land to produce fuel is a cow
>sucking herself.
Not really, you forget the sunlight is free.
Really you are using plants as sunlight energy converters.
Mind you the non-biological ones are significantly more efficient, but
much more expensive to run.
>Now if you can find ag wastes that can economically be used
>that's another story but planting a crop to raise fuel is absurd unless
>there is no other choice. Trying to push entropy up hill is very expensive.
You have forgotten sunlight.
Gordon Couger
fuel in place of food is something only a very few places can afford. I can
remember my wife's dad talking about how much land it took to feed the
horses that they farmed with. I think we might do better than that with farm
raised fuel but not a lot.
I think that we are working on the wrong problem. We shouldn't be looking
for more fuel we should be looking for ways to farm with a lot less fuel. In
the end we have to do both.
When corn is cheap and plentiful and fuel is dear it is popular farmers to
look at ethanol as a way to solve both problems. But the price of oil never
stays high. Greed transcends politics and religion and it is in the
producers best interest that crude trade in the 18 to 25 dollar range. Any
less and they loose money any more and we start to conserve.
The day may come that we turn to ag waste as fuel but I can't see a
situation that raising crops for fuel can be viable for any length of time.
If it takes 1 gallon fuel to raise 1.25 gallons of fuel then to farm
Waggoner Ranch's big feild of 4,000 acres you would have to plant 16,000
acres of corn some place to have fuel for it. That would sure fix our
surplus.
Gordon.
Oz
>No I haven't forgotten sunlight is free. The opportunity cost of raising
>fuel in place of food is something only a very few places can afford. I can
>remember my wife's dad talking about how much land it took to feed the
>horses that they farmed with. I think we might do better than that with farm
>raised fuel but not a lot.
It all depends on the cost of energy. For sure one day cheap oil will
run out and when it does fuel will increase in real terms, perhaps to
the real cost in europe in the early 20C. This is significantly higher
than today. At these sorts of levels it may well pay to produce biomass
for burning.
>I think that we are working on the wrong problem. We shouldn't be looking
>for more fuel we should be looking for ways to farm with a lot less fuel. In
>the end we have to do both.
Of course.
>When corn is cheap and plentiful and fuel is dear it is popular farmers to
>look at ethanol as a way to solve both problems. But the price of oil never
>stays high. Greed transcends politics and religion and it is in the
>producers best interest that crude trade in the 18 to 25 dollar range. Any
>less and they loose money any more and we start to conserve.
Indeed, but that is while potential world oil production exceeds
consumption.
>The day may come that we turn to ag waste as fuel but I can't see a
>situation that raising crops for fuel can be viable for any length of time.
>If it takes 1 gallon fuel to raise 1.25 gallons of fuel
I rather dispute this and I would like to see the figures it's based on.
>then to farm
>Waggoner Ranch's big feild of 4,000 acres you would have to plant 16,000
>acres of corn some place to have fuel for it. That would sure fix our
>surplus.
Look, let's take things simply. I produce about 250T of rapeseed a year
on about 1/4 to 1/5 of my acreage that produces 100T or 100,000 litres
(20,000 gall) of oil alone. My entire annual consumption (including the
drier) is under 10,000gall/annum. Then I could ship off something in the
region of 1000-1500T of straw with an energy value roughly equivalent to
another 500T (another 100,000 galls) of oil and STILL sell my other
crops (incl the 42%CP rapemeal) for food.
Torsten Brinch
wrote:
>Gordon Couger writes
>>If it takes 1 gallon fuel to raise 1.25 gallons of fuel
>I rather dispute this and I would like to see the figures it's based on.
see
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm
"We conclude that the NEV of corn ethanol is positive when fertilizers
are produced by modern processing plants, corn is converted in modern
ethanol facilities, farmers achieve normal corn yields, and energy
credits are allocated to coproducts. Our NEV estimate of 16,193
Btu/gal can be considered conservative, since it was derived using the
replacement method for valuing coproducts, and it does not include
energy credits for plants that sell carbon dioxide. Corn ethanol is
energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24, that is,
for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 24-percent
energy gain."
Best regards
Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name
Oz
>>I rather dispute this and I would like to see the figures it's based on.
>
>see
>http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm
>
>"We conclude that the NEV of corn ethanol is positive when fertilizers
>are produced by modern processing plants, corn is converted in modern
>ethanol facilities, farmers achieve normal corn yields, and energy
>credits are allocated to coproducts. Our NEV estimate of 16,193
>Btu/gal can be considered conservative, since it was derived using the
>replacement method for valuing coproducts, and it does not include
>energy credits for plants that sell carbon dioxide. Corn ethanol is
>energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24, that is,
>for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 24-percent
>energy gain."
Maybe, but nobody has presented basic figures for this here.
Just the corn growing bit would do for example.
Torsten Brinch
wrote:
>Torsten Brinch writes
>>>I rather dispute this and I would like to see the figures it's based on.
>>
>>see
>>http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm
>>
>>"We conclude that the NEV of corn ethanol is positive when fertilizers
>>are produced by modern processing plants, corn is converted in modern
>>ethanol facilities, farmers achieve normal corn yields, and energy
>>credits are allocated to coproducts. Our NEV estimate of 16,193
>>Btu/gal can be considered conservative, since it was derived using the
>>replacement method for valuing coproducts, and it does not include
>>energy credits for plants that sell carbon dioxide. Corn ethanol is
>>energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24, that is,
>>for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 24-percent
>>energy gain."
>
>Maybe, but nobody has presented basic figures for this here.
Well, just use the link that was provided for you.
Oz
>
>Well, just use the link that was provided for you.
So you can't simplify it adequately to post a short list of the numbers?
Gordon Couger
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:54:01 +0100, Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Gordon Couger writes
>
> >>If it takes 1 gallon fuel to raise 1.25 gallons of fuel
>
>
> see
> http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm
>
> "We conclude that the NEV of corn ethanol is positive when fertilizers
> are produced by modern processing plants, corn is converted in modern
> ethanol facilities, farmers achieve normal corn yields, and energy
> credits are allocated to coproducts. Our NEV estimate of 16,193
> Btu/gal can be considered conservative, since it was derived using the
> replacement method for valuing coproducts, and it does not include
> energy credits for plants that sell carbon dioxide. Corn ethanol is
> energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24, that is,
> for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 24-percent
> energy gain."
>
>
fertilizer for corn yielding 120 bushels. The gross heat of combustion of
100 pounds of NH4 has 2.75 as many Btu as the average net return of the
studies in the paper by Shapouri, et. al. Burn the NH4 in a diesel engine
and save the wear and tear on the equipment.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater OK
Oz
> IMO it would
>be more effective to pellet the raw material in the feild and burn it as is.
Agreed.
There was field pelleting equipment available a few years ago. Rather
expensive and took a lot of horsepower as I remember and quite honestly
I think it has been overtaken by high density square baling. I would be
very surprised if these were not easily convertable to powder form
directly by a fixed plant at a power station.
Also in passing the low grade waste heat produced by a power station
would be ideal for drying straw quite economically, I would have
thought.
Oz
>Gross Heat of Combustion
>methane 1007.262 Btu/ft³ @ 60 °F
>ammonia 1483.8 BTU/ft3
>propane 2516.198 Btu/ft³ @ 60 °
I suddenly realised we could extract some useful figures from this.
Pity about the archaic units though.
I won;t bother to look anything up as torsten et al will know these by
heart and not from a 30 year old memory, and he loves correcting me.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the above is all measured at
STP.
1 gm mol is (iirc) 22.4 litres, and ft^3 is 28L and a BTU is 1kJ
So
Density Energy
Mol wt g/L /gm
CH4 36kJ/L 16 .71 50kJ
NH3 53kJ/L 17 .76 70kJ
So ammonia has about 1.4 times the energy of the methane it was made
from. I'm not sure about urea as it typically sells for less than
ammonium nitrate but has a much higher nitrogen ratio so may be made in
a somewhat different process with higher yields per unit energy.
Anyway ammonia is made by an old, and presumably highly developed
technology so I would be quite surprised if the total net energy cost
ended up far from 100MJ/kg of N.
So some useful figures:
Product Gross energy MJ/kg
N 100
diesel 44
Straw 18
Maize 19 Largely carbohydrate
Rape seed 30 44% oil
I can't speak for the US systems, but I can speak for the UK ones.
Here we are talking for wheat of
grain yield of 7.5 TDM/Ha
straw yield of 5.0 TDM/Ha
total of 12.5 TDM/Ha
Total energy 225 GJ/Ha
We apply typically (for this yield)
180 kgN 18 GJ/Ha
75 kgP2O5 Torsten has the figs
100 kgK2O Torsten has the figs
10 kg Pesticides? 5 GJ/Ha (equivalent to 280kg straw)
50 kg diesel 2 GJ/Ha (bit of a guess)
Total 25 GJ/Ha
So unless I have made a drastic error (always possible) we spend 25 GJ
to obtain 225 GJ which is a gain of 9:1.
Even if you allow some leeway and reduce yields by 20% (net production
thus 180 GJ/Ha) and stick in some minor energy costs I have omitted or
forgotten (say take it to 50 GJ/Ha) you still have a very comfortable
3.6:1 energy gain.
Note that many growers regularly exceed 9T/Ha of grain.
I could do rape as well, but I think the results will be more or less in
line.
OK, so now let's see your figures.
Gordon Couger
either.
Gordon Couger
Sounds right, I think the cost of fermentation and distaling eats up a lot. Like
I said your better off buring the corn than making alcohol.
Torsten Brinch
wrote:
>Gordon Couger writes
>
>>Gross Heat of Combustion
>>methane 1007.262 Btu/ft³ @ 60 °F
>>ammonia 1483.8 BTU/ft3
>>propane 2516.198 Btu/ft³ @ 60 °
>
>I suddenly realised we could extract some useful figures from this.
>Pity about the archaic units though. <snip>
Cubic feet aargh.
What I get, translating to proper units
methane 36 MJ/m3
ammonia 53 MJ/m3
propane 90 MJ/m3
The ammonia figure can't be right --
it is 4 times too high, or therabouts.
Methane and propane figures seem to be OK.
Best regards
Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name
The Blackgrass Raiders are a band of outcast
mercenaries who wander Norrath for the purest
of all persuits... Our Own.
Oz
>Yes, it takes lots of power to pellet somthing but hauling bale isn't cheap
>either.
Hmmmm.
With modern high density bales it's not hard for a UK longbed truck to
carry it's full load, or very close to it. Loading and unloading times
would typically be similar to grain under UK conditions.
Oz
>What I get, translating to proper units
>
>methane 36 MJ/m3
>ammonia 53 MJ/m3
>propane 90 MJ/m3
>
>The ammonia figure can't be right --
>it is 4 times too high, or therabouts.
>Methane and propane figures seem to be OK.
Hmm. I'm not so sure, although it's years since I did any of this stuff,
but surely H-N bonds are weak compared to C-H bonds and N(triple)N is
very strong?
Certainly offhand it didn't look implausible to me but I don't think I
have access to the bond strengths to total it all up. I guess you will
have a reference book handy on this at home though.
Torsten Brinch
wrote:
I have no heat of combustion reference handy
for ammonia, sorry. But as I said, the figure
given above is much too high. You and Gordon should
find yourself a better estimate for this if you plan
on using it for any practical purpose or estimation.