Bioelectricity promises more ‘miles per acre’ than ethanol

yeah I agree with you totally, the benefits and all the incentive to make the change is there but by implementing the change I mean the very first steps, cutting through the red tape. The government requires permits, inspections, and all kinds of administrative bullshit that is usually what kills these kinds of ideas. That's where those with old money and connections can make things stall or fall through if they have already gotten through the first hurdle of getting financing. Especially these days with the banks collapsing, it would be pretty difficult for a lot of people to get the loans they need in order to even get the land. It's not impossible though, there just needs to be a lot of smart, resourceful and connected people behind it.

------"yeah there was a lot of things that happened early on in the industrial revolution to make things more difficult for us now. A lot of people with old money don't want to give up their new money, and they have the money and connections to do whatever they can to make sure things don't change."----------

True.

------"Unfortunately it's going to be a pretty difficult change to implement, but I think with enough of the right people coming together, it will change."--------

Actually, no. We can benefit ourselves enormously by making the shift. For one thing, we would not be transfering wealth overseas to despots and dictators, terrorists, and rich elitists with no interest in the US except how much money they can gouge out. We can keep money and jobs right here. Ethanol can be produced anywhere, from any kind of plant material, using feedstock that is abundant and cheap, or even waste. It will be cheap fuel because we won't have to ship it half way around the world, it can be produced in local communities. Abundant and cheap energy equals economic prosperity----we already know that.

Someone will have to make, install, manage and run renewable energy production. If we are doing that here, we can export it to other places. But we are letting other countries gain the lead over us. Spain, Brazil, China, Sweden, India, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, and Portugual will be the leading world powers with all the power they will ever need, while the US will become a languishing backwater, third world country within the next 50-60 years if we don't pull our heads out and get busy.

We need to be making and using biofuels, solar power, wind power, geothermal, tidal, hydro, and every other type of renewable resource we can, just as fast as we can.

Expensive? See what happens to the economy when we are using the free energy nature provides us instead of paying out the butt constantly ever increasing prices for fossil fuels.

Renewable energy is too expensive? Sunlight is free, plants are free, wind is free, tides are free, heat from inside the earth is free. If someone could magically build a car that could run forever and the fuel price was guarranteed never to go up, and it cost only a little more than what they could buy right now---would they complain it is too expensive? What if it produced no pollution, or environmental destruction at all, would they still complain? What if we could sell those cars to all the other people in the world, would they still complain? Would they rather have a recession and end up in the poorhouse instead?

It appears to me that they would.

China is producing 2.8 million vehicles this year that run on 100% hydrous ethanol. Straight from the still, no blending needed.

It may turn out that Kruschev was right after all. Communism may bury Capitalism after all. RIP

yeah there was a lot of things that happened early on in the industrial revolution to make things more difficult for us now. A lot of people with old money don't want to give up their new money, and they have the money and connections to do whatever they can to make sure things don't change. Unfortunately it's going to be a pretty difficult change to implement, but I think with enough of the right people coming together, it will change. We'll just have to beat them at their own game.

--------" With this type of model I would envision having the farms, refinery and distribution hubs all on one campus, with each campus serving X amount of people in the area so it's all as localized as possible and can be scaled up or down as needed. Pretty ridiculous that we have this kind of technology and it's not being taken advantage of to it's fullest."--------------

Yes, this is one of the most attractive things about biofuels, they can be produced from available feedstocks anywhere. We won't be sending jobs and wealth overseas. It is also a much more energy efficient model, without a lot of long distance shipping. We can do the same things we do with petroleum with much less, because we won't have the energy loss of long distance shipping and refining. It would also be much safer for people and the environment----biofuels are far safer and less damaging than petroleum if spilled, and far less difficult to manage if they are.

Notice in the article when butanol was first made by fermentation culture----1916. We've known about ethanol for over 1,000 years. The first internal combustion engines were designed to run on ethanol. There was no gasoline yet. Petroleum industry disinformation PR hard at work. Why do so many people STILL think petroleum is the best choice for us----it is only the best choice if you want to gouge profits. The first Model T Ford was designed to run on ethanol when introduced in 1908. Henry Ford always thought ethanol was a better fuel than petroleum. The first engine that Ruolf Diesel built in 1893 ran on peanut oil.

yeah, they blend it because it has a lower combustion temp than gasoline, but it's still ready to go in the gasoline tank so it's the fastest way to reduce c02 emissions from cars since nobody has to change anything about their car, wait to be able to afford a hybrid or electric or for their current car to become obsolete. I think you can even make butanol with the leftover plant material from the ethanol and have an all in one production site if I'm not mistaken. With this type of model I would envision having the farms, refinery and distribution hubs all on one campus, with each campus serving X amount of people in the area so it's all as localized as possible and can be scaled up or down as needed. Pretty ridiculous that we have this kind of technology and it's not being taken advantage of to it's fullest.

Butanol as a fuel----

http://current.com/items/90028597_bioelectricity-promises-more-miles-per-acre-th...

Butanol can be used blended with ethanol to replace gasoline.

yeah we actually have the technology now to make a fuel called bio butanol that can go into unmodified gasoline engines and run everything fine. It's made from the waste of an enzyme that eats dead plant material, so any organic garbage can be used, we don't have to grow plants specifically for it. Big oil killed this a while ago, the government won't give people the permits to open up the facilities. So, once again the beaurocrats have chosen gaining personal wealth over ending global warming. I think it's time we told these beurocrats fuck you, we're doing it anyways and if you don't like it, well that's too bad because this is my planet too.

Biofuels are the only technology that can do anything and everything that petroleum based fuels can do---and do it better.

KCFoxie---algae based biodiesel is an excellent choice. Rudolf Diesel's first engine ran on peanut oil.
Diesel engines are rugged, powerful, and when fueled with biodiesel clean. They require no modification to run biodiesel. They are well tried and proven. And all the technology to produce and use them is in place, all we need to do is change fuels.

Perhaps the findings in this study have much more to do with this:

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=6304&M...

than science.

----"When the private university announced a partnership with the world's largest privately owned oil company in 2002 - Stanford will get up to $100 million from the company over 10 years to fund climate and energy research - critics questioned what Big Oil would be getting out of the deal. Now, they say, it's evident: a sweet public relations opportunity. "-------

-------"Stanford brand name

Jennifer Washburn, a researcher who tracks the increasingly cozy relationship between universities and corporations, said Bing "has very good reason to be concerned about how Stanford is allowing its academic brand name to be distorted by its outside relationship with corporate donors."

Washburn, author of "University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education," points to an early ad in which Exxon Mobil began touting the partnership. The ad, which ran on the New York Times op-ed page, suggested that scientists were debating the cause of global warming, even though there was a clear scientific consensus by that time that humans were responsible. The ad was signed by Lynn Orr, project director of the global climate program, and it carried Stanford's seal.

"Stanford really allowed Exxon Mobil to exploit Stanford's academic brand name," Washburn said. "They've done very little to protect their academic autonomy." -----------------

Isn't the c02 that's stored in the switch grass released when they burn it? I think there are even greener alternatives out there like algae, and we would need better batteries or the prices of lithium iron phosphate batteries to go down before we can fully rely on electric cars no matter what the source, because what we have now doesn't allow people to travel as far as many people need them to without the charge getting completely drained.

this is astounding when you ask the question it does become somewhat of a no brainer. I'm curious what the results would be for the use of hemp as opposed to switchgrass?

hemp makes for great biofuel production so in this scenario would it be a superior bioelectric generator as well?

HI DEAR IS INCREDIBLE BUT TRUTH THE ELECTRO-MAGNETS IS THE SAME ENERGY MOVE THE EART AND NOW CAN MANIPULATE AND CONTROLED. THR CAR OF THE FUTUR IS 100% ELECTRIC.

WITH THIS INVENTION DOT BURN NATHING, NOT GAS EMISSIONS, NOT GAS A EFECT SIERRA ETC.

AND THE BEST IS FREE FOR EVERIONE TO PRODUCE HIS ON ELECTRICITY.

I like the idea. The problem is that there are only a handful of electric vehicles that are for sale, they're super expensive, and they cost more to maintain than my diesel. Not to mention on the highway (the figure to which I judge a vehicle's worth), they suck. I get 700mi out of a tank of diesel. They go about 300 miles, best case, in a much smaller car.

However compared to E85, I'd say it's breakthrough. Don't touch my biodiesel, tho.

You burn the biomass just like coal, natural gas, wood, etc. The burning material then boils water into steam which turns a turbine.

This is going to sound really, REALLY stupid...sorry. But I am drawing a blank when trying to picture how the biomass is converted to electricity. I can see how you make corn into ethanol...but what process is used to convert corn into electricity? I gather you don't just burn it to heat water and turn it into steam to push the blades of a generator. Can somebody toss me a flotation device on this one?...Little help?...

Combustion engines need to be phased out.

Battery power is the way to go.

Wow, sounds good! Bring it on!!

but electric cars suck.... lol

wow, could you imagine?? gotta post this in 'current stories.'

mario
online community