Petrol at $3 a litre
- Thread starter Aceyducey
- Start date
asy said:
I do too. But for the meantime, while fusion is still being researched and attempted, I think nuclear fission may be the only answer. It produces abundant amounts of power, and despite many preconceptions, it is quite safe, and most importantly clean.
The only by-product is radioactive waste, which can be stored underground. This is the huge downside of nuclear power at present, but I think we really have to put things in perspective.
For example, in 1999 in the US, there were 6.3 million car accidents, of which there were 3.2 million people were injured, and 41,345 fatalities[1].
In the next few decades, we will see China and India become increasingly exposed to the "Western culture", and with that comes a need for greater power consumption. We are seeing it already. China and India comprise around 2.3 billion people each, which is about 35% of the Earth's human population. Providing extra power for 2.3 billion more people, the way we are doing now, is a scary thought — in my view it's the fast track to a doomed planet.
We've only got this planet. If we screw Earth up, there is nowhere else we can go.
Nuclear fission is the answer — if only to provide power whilst looking to fusion ... (or some other Sci-Fi fantasy like Zero Point Energy.
)[1] = 1999 Car Accident Statistics.
Asy,
Biodiesel is generally 80-90% diesel and the rest bio - so the saving isn't that great.
Ethanol is a light fuel and not much use for heavy farm machinery.
Neither produce as high an energy coefficient as petrol or diesel (meaning weight on weight they produce less energy per $ invested). So savings would not be the right word....
Cheers,
Aceyducey
Biodiesel is generally 80-90% diesel and the rest bio - so the saving isn't that great.
Ethanol is a light fuel and not much use for heavy farm machinery.
Neither produce as high an energy coefficient as petrol or diesel (meaning weight on weight they produce less energy per $ invested). So savings would not be the right word....
Cheers,
Aceyducey
It's not the $ cost
This link explains better than I:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8607389/
RC
Cane farmers may, or may not, be able to sell ethinol at a profit but they will need to buy diesolene at "primary producer" rates and sell the final product at "pump price" ergo they will only be farming the taxes. Should they be forced to pay full economic cost of their petrolium i/p they would not be so keen.asy said:
This link explains better than I:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8607389/
RC
I've seen articles indicating it cost more energy to produce Bio-fuels than it produces. But I have a problem with this. If this is the case then why does Brazil produce so much ethanol for fuel, surely they'd run out of petroleum (or cost them heaps in foreign exchange).
Also I beleive they produced 100% Bio-diesel in Europe and the engines to suit, in fact Catepiller guarantee their engines to run on 100% Bio-diesel.
In the States they use 90% Ethanol fuels and have the engines which can run on either the ethanol or petroleum
Also I beleive they produced 100% Bio-diesel in Europe and the engines to suit, in fact Catepiller guarantee their engines to run on 100% Bio-diesel.
In the States they use 90% Ethanol fuels and have the engines which can run on either the ethanol or petroleum
Here's some information on the costs:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-07-18-ethanol-study_x.htm
Andy, Brazil is an isolated example and there are other factors at work (such as the government strategy and taxes on petroleum products, the ability of Brazil to grow the necessary crops, etc (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ethanol15jun15,0,3313642.story?track=tothtml)).
Many countries other than the US have introduced some form of biodiesel. It's a drop in the collective bucket.
As oil prices rise, alternatives become more cost-effective....but so do many otherwise uncommercial oil deposits
However given the cost, complexity and fact that we still lose air travel (and much of the developed world's heating) - there's little chance that alternative energies will rise to replace fossil fuels in the next 40 or so years.
Andy, do some more research - it will shock you how much supposedly clean energies such as solar actually cost in fossil fuels to create.
Remember, a fuel needs to generate more energy than it costs - and nothing beats fossil fuels for that!
Cheers,
Aceyducey
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-07-18-ethanol-study_x.htm
Andy, Brazil is an isolated example and there are other factors at work (such as the government strategy and taxes on petroleum products, the ability of Brazil to grow the necessary crops, etc (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ethanol15jun15,0,3313642.story?track=tothtml)).
Many countries other than the US have introduced some form of biodiesel. It's a drop in the collective bucket.
As oil prices rise, alternatives become more cost-effective....but so do many otherwise uncommercial oil deposits
However given the cost, complexity and fact that we still lose air travel (and much of the developed world's heating) - there's little chance that alternative energies will rise to replace fossil fuels in the next 40 or so years.
Andy, do some more research - it will shock you how much supposedly clean energies such as solar actually cost in fossil fuels to create.
Remember, a fuel needs to generate more energy than it costs - and nothing beats fossil fuels for that!
Cheers,
Aceyducey
Andy, please do some research and post your results. I am interested in this.
The ethinol being produced in Oz now is most likely to come from sorgham (milo), I believe. I also hear the sugar industry is planning to use molasses (a very valuable stock feed) and bagasse (can be burn't for electricity generation) but the industry seems deliberately vague about this.
RC
The ethinol being produced in Oz now is most likely to come from sorgham (milo), I believe. I also hear the sugar industry is planning to use molasses (a very valuable stock feed) and bagasse (can be burn't for electricity generation) but the industry seems deliberately vague about this.
RC
Richard
I'll try to get more info. I suspect Acey and others are much more knowledgable on this subject.
I don't know about Sorgham but Brazil uses sugar cane and they do use the Bagasse to power their ethanol production and they have surplus energy that they feed onto the grid. Don't see why we can't do the same.
"Ethanol producers are supplying Brazil's grid with more than 600 megawatts of electricity." quoted from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ethanol15jun15,0,3313642.story?track=tothtml
I'll try to get more info. I suspect Acey and others are much more knowledgable on this subject.
I don't know about Sorgham but Brazil uses sugar cane and they do use the Bagasse to power their ethanol production and they have surplus energy that they feed onto the grid. Don't see why we can't do the same.
"Ethanol producers are supplying Brazil's grid with more than 600 megawatts of electricity." quoted from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ethanol15jun15,0,3313642.story?track=tothtml
Richard
It seems Sweet Sorghum is a good propect for ethanol production as it can grow in marginal areas.
A few links:
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1993/v2-394.html
http://pune.sancharnet.in/nariphaltan/seedworld.htm
The other big question; is there enough land available to meet demand if we had to switch to ethanol?
It seems Sweet Sorghum is a good propect for ethanol production as it can grow in marginal areas.
A few links:
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1993/v2-394.html
http://pune.sancharnet.in/nariphaltan/seedworld.htm
The other big question; is there enough land available to meet demand if we had to switch to ethanol?
There's no money in it here Andy.
Our sugar growers are small and marginal producers and resist selling up to large concerns.
They have lobbied the government about ethanol production, unsuccessfully as it simply makes no commercial sense. The result would have been very large surcharges on ethanol sales as the government fisted money to the producers to make up for the inefficient production. Ergo, no market for the product.
Same problem with other vegetation used to produce ethanol. And you need to consider how many hectares of vegetation are required to produce the fuel requirements for a single vehicle for a year. I'll let you look them up, you wouldn't believe me if I told you We simply could not support our current infrastructure on this fuel (and yes this does mean that our current infrastructure WILL change substantially and painfully in the future when oil gets too expensive and too strategic to be used for private transportation).
The Australian government does have a short-term view on alternative vehicular fuels - but look at their energy production policies! (coal powerplants in gas rich WA, gas powerplants in coal rich NSW - no effective unifying Federal policies on a strategic resource, rolling blackouts in summer in QLD, NSW and other states getting worse as we each consume more energy)
With vehicle fuels there's also the requirement for massive spending by service station owners on providing facilities for ethanol fueling, for refineries and transportation networks (to refine and distribute the ethanol), for automotive producers to make and sell appropriate vehicles.
To shift an entire economy even partially from one fuel to another takes a HUGE effort. Remember that Brazil was substantially under-developed when it shifted and so there wasn't the huge sunk cost in existing infrastructure that had to be replaced.
The shift towards unleaded fuels has taken more than 10 years and is still incomplete....and this is a fuel with the same characteristics as to storage and distribution as the fuel before it.
Hence if you want a meaningful shift to ethanol (putting aside it's poor functional qualities and additional cost of using it as a fuel) it would require a long-term approach by a government over at LEAST a twenty year period.
Think that's likely?
Personally I'm looking at more oil & gas assets - there's a guaranteed market for the effective lifetime of the wells and I can find investors.
I did offer some time ago to set up an alternate energy company if people on Somersoft were willing to put money into it - not a single response. I guess people here prefer to INVEST in companies that have a good chance of earning profits.
If I created a company that leased biogas plants to Nepal (Cost about $1K per plant, ROI 35% so payback in three years....with overheads call it a 20% ROI) maybe I'd get some interest, but payback is still much smaller than for fossil energy
With oil and gas I can reinvest profits into alternative energy sources that make economic sense at the time - better than sinking cash now into twenty year + propositions (I like geothermal - similar extraction characteristics to oil and gas and mature electricity conversion technology (it's steam power), but the land grab is on now and we've not proved that a business model works in Australia yet)
I'll make the offer again - if there are people out there willing to invest in alternate energy sources, get in touch with me and we can do the numbers to set up a company.
Note that it will require substantial upfront investment (start at $30M for geothermal and about 1,000x that for ethanol fuel to commercialisation) with a substantial risk of zero return (unknown market, risk of uncommercial production, lack of infrastructure and government support).
Cheers,
Aceyducey
Our sugar growers are small and marginal producers and resist selling up to large concerns.
They have lobbied the government about ethanol production, unsuccessfully as it simply makes no commercial sense. The result would have been very large surcharges on ethanol sales as the government fisted money to the producers to make up for the inefficient production. Ergo, no market for the product.
Same problem with other vegetation used to produce ethanol. And you need to consider how many hectares of vegetation are required to produce the fuel requirements for a single vehicle for a year. I'll let you look them up, you wouldn't believe me if I told you
We simply could not support our current infrastructure on this fuel (and yes this does mean that our current infrastructure WILL change substantially and painfully in the future when oil gets too expensive and too strategic to be used for private transportation).The Australian government does have a short-term view on alternative vehicular fuels - but look at their energy production policies! (coal powerplants in gas rich WA, gas powerplants in coal rich NSW - no effective unifying Federal policies on a strategic resource, rolling blackouts in summer in QLD, NSW and other states getting worse as we each consume more energy)
With vehicle fuels there's also the requirement for massive spending by service station owners on providing facilities for ethanol fueling, for refineries and transportation networks (to refine and distribute the ethanol), for automotive producers to make and sell appropriate vehicles.
To shift an entire economy even partially from one fuel to another takes a HUGE effort. Remember that Brazil was substantially under-developed when it shifted and so there wasn't the huge sunk cost in existing infrastructure that had to be replaced.
The shift towards unleaded fuels has taken more than 10 years and is still incomplete....and this is a fuel with the same characteristics as to storage and distribution as the fuel before it.
Hence if you want a meaningful shift to ethanol (putting aside it's poor functional qualities and additional cost of using it as a fuel) it would require a long-term approach by a government over at LEAST a twenty year period.
Think that's likely?
Personally I'm looking at more oil & gas assets - there's a guaranteed market for the effective lifetime of the wells and I can find investors.
I did offer some time ago to set up an alternate energy company if people on Somersoft were willing to put money into it - not a single response. I guess people here prefer to INVEST in companies that have a good chance of earning profits.
If I created a company that leased biogas plants to Nepal (Cost about $1K per plant, ROI 35% so payback in three years....with overheads call it a 20% ROI) maybe I'd get some interest, but payback is still much smaller than for fossil energy
With oil and gas I can reinvest profits into alternative energy sources that make economic sense at the time - better than sinking cash now into twenty year + propositions (I like geothermal - similar extraction characteristics to oil and gas and mature electricity conversion technology (it's steam power), but the land grab is on now and we've not proved that a business model works in Australia yet)
I'll make the offer again - if there are people out there willing to invest in alternate energy sources, get in touch with me and we can do the numbers to set up a company.
Note that it will require substantial upfront investment (start at $30M for geothermal and about 1,000x that for ethanol fuel to commercialisation) with a substantial risk of zero return (unknown market, risk of uncommercial production, lack of infrastructure and government support).
Cheers,
Aceyducey
Last edited:
I agree, the biggest obstacle is our governments lack of interest and opposing interests of big business. Ofcourse nobody wants to factor in the enviromental damage/costs our current energy economy is based on.
I do see that bio fuels are likely (if anything) to be bridging sources of energy while the hydrogen (fuel cell) technology develops. Bio fuels can be used by the aviation and heavy transport industry (although pure Bio fuel engines will have to be phased in)
The Hydrogen energy economy would best be coupled with Nuclear power (Electrical grid), fission is the present tech but fusion is what we need to acheive.
Nuclear fusion solves the problem of water supply as it would be a clean, cheap source of power to desalinate water.
As I understand it, the bio fuels are practically net free of greenhouse emission, and is sustainable as long as we dont clear native forrest. We also have the technology today to produce the bio fuel and manufacture the engines.
Hydrogen/fuel cell technology is still in the development stage, maybe its 10 to 20 years before we see a meaningful move into this technology. This can be a very clean technology, and sustainable. Ideally its needs to be coupled with a means of clean electricy generation, renewable and nuclear energy.
I do see that bio fuels are likely (if anything) to be bridging sources of energy while the hydrogen (fuel cell) technology develops. Bio fuels can be used by the aviation and heavy transport industry (although pure Bio fuel engines will have to be phased in)
The Hydrogen energy economy would best be coupled with Nuclear power (Electrical grid), fission is the present tech but fusion is what we need to acheive.
Nuclear fusion solves the problem of water supply as it would be a clean, cheap source of power to desalinate water.
As I understand it, the bio fuels are practically net free of greenhouse emission, and is sustainable as long as we dont clear native forrest. We also have the technology today to produce the bio fuel and manufacture the engines.
Hydrogen/fuel cell technology is still in the development stage, maybe its 10 to 20 years before we see a meaningful move into this technology. This can be a very clean technology, and sustainable. Ideally its needs to be coupled with a means of clean electricy generation, renewable and nuclear energy.
Andy,
1) Big business isn't opposed to clean energy sources. It's opposed to UNPROFITABLE energy sources. The equation doesn't work because we pay far too little for energy.
2) I don't know of any renewable (in the short-term) 'bio' fuel in sufficient supply and of effective cost usable by the aviation industry. And remember, fossil fuels ARE bio fuels.
3) Hydrogen cells have significant limitations regarding the elements required in their construction. We need a break-through in design in order to utilise them to any great extent. When is a break-through likely? The correct answer is 'who knows' - it could be 2 years, it could be 200, it could be never. I don't like relying on replacing 100 million barrels a day (plus gas and coal) with a technology with such a high risk.
4) Bio fuels have an extremely large environmental impact. Our farming practices globally are appalling - have you considered the environmental damage of non-native plantations and poor farming practices in your equation?
5) Nuclear is useful as a fixed power source - but we still require a compact way of storing and transferring energy. Nothing beats oil (or even LPG despite the huge safety overheads) for cost-effectiveness, nor will for a long time.
Andy I applaud your optimism, but to actually make headway towards a sustainable energy future it is VITAL that we start from a position of knowing the facts!
Would you invest in a property based on a glossy artist's impression of how the neighbourhood might look in twenty years time?
How about an energy solution?
Cheers,
Aceyducey
1) Big business isn't opposed to clean energy sources. It's opposed to UNPROFITABLE energy sources. The equation doesn't work because we pay far too little for energy.
2) I don't know of any renewable (in the short-term) 'bio' fuel in sufficient supply and of effective cost usable by the aviation industry. And remember, fossil fuels ARE bio fuels.
3) Hydrogen cells have significant limitations regarding the elements required in their construction. We need a break-through in design in order to utilise them to any great extent. When is a break-through likely? The correct answer is 'who knows' - it could be 2 years, it could be 200, it could be never. I don't like relying on replacing 100 million barrels a day (plus gas and coal) with a technology with such a high risk.
4) Bio fuels have an extremely large environmental impact. Our farming practices globally are appalling - have you considered the environmental damage of non-native plantations and poor farming practices in your equation?
5) Nuclear is useful as a fixed power source - but we still require a compact way of storing and transferring energy. Nothing beats oil (or even LPG despite the huge safety overheads) for cost-effectiveness, nor will for a long time.
Andy I applaud your optimism, but to actually make headway towards a sustainable energy future it is VITAL that we start from a position of knowing the facts!
Would you invest in a property based on a glossy artist's impression of how the neighbourhood might look in twenty years time?
How about an energy solution?
Cheers,
Aceyducey
Geez Acey, you're making me work
1. Ofcourse Fossil fuel is the easiest and cheapest source of energy in today's economy. Nowhere is it being costed in for the damage it is doing to our environment and green house ramifications. Big business won't change until it runs out or our communities demand change, usually via Gov. legislation. (I'm sure the Australian fuel companies didn't want to introduce lead free petrol either, but the Gov. made them)
2. I tend to agree that Bio fuels aren't the answer to replace our need for fossil fuels for all road based vehicles, but I do believe that Bio fuels can quickly meet the demand of heavy transport, Farm machinery etc.
While fossil fuels may have derived from biological matter, the carbon has been locked up for millions of years and we all know the undesirable effect of releasing the CO2 (Global warming). The Bio-fuels referred to are grown by our farmers as Cane , sorghum etc, thus consuming CO2 and converted to fuel which release the same CO2. Theoretically the process should be Net zero CO2 into the atmosphere.
3. You're right. Fuel cells are probably 10 to 20 years away. There is nothing wrong with using hydrogen as a fuel for an Internal combustion engine. Ford has already said that hydrogen is actually a safer fuel than petrol in our cars. Hydrogen is clean burning, producing He. But we need Nuclear or renewable energies to produce the hydrogen. The other good thing about producing hydrogen is that it doesn't have to be centralised, we can even produce it in our own homes. I presume it would be logical to produce it at central stations scattered all over the place. Producing hydrogen is also great for using up low demand from any power stations, effectively like a battery.
4 I understand the farming of bio-fuels may have environmental impacts, but nothing like the burning of fossil fuels. It would not be desirable to remove native forest for the cultivation of any crop and this is no longer allowed in any case.
5. Hydrogen is the answer. Clean, easy and relatively safer to transport. Hydrogen provides much more energy per kg than fossil fuels.
Acey, we need to be positive and optimistic. There are solutions. Our governments, industry and science/engineering just need to pull their fingers out, the community will follow.
On a side note I find it disgusting and disgraceful that the USA/UK/Aus spend more on waring with Iraq and Afghanistan in one day than what the world spends on Fusion research in one year !!!!!!
1. Ofcourse Fossil fuel is the easiest and cheapest source of energy in today's economy. Nowhere is it being costed in for the damage it is doing to our environment and green house ramifications. Big business won't change until it runs out or our communities demand change, usually via Gov. legislation. (I'm sure the Australian fuel companies didn't want to introduce lead free petrol either, but the Gov. made them)
2. I tend to agree that Bio fuels aren't the answer to replace our need for fossil fuels for all road based vehicles, but I do believe that Bio fuels can quickly meet the demand of heavy transport, Farm machinery etc.
While fossil fuels may have derived from biological matter, the carbon has been locked up for millions of years and we all know the undesirable effect of releasing the CO2 (Global warming). The Bio-fuels referred to are grown by our farmers as Cane , sorghum etc, thus consuming CO2 and converted to fuel which release the same CO2. Theoretically the process should be Net zero CO2 into the atmosphere.
3. You're right. Fuel cells are probably 10 to 20 years away. There is nothing wrong with using hydrogen as a fuel for an Internal combustion engine. Ford has already said that hydrogen is actually a safer fuel than petrol in our cars. Hydrogen is clean burning, producing He. But we need Nuclear or renewable energies to produce the hydrogen. The other good thing about producing hydrogen is that it doesn't have to be centralised, we can even produce it in our own homes. I presume it would be logical to produce it at central stations scattered all over the place. Producing hydrogen is also great for using up low demand from any power stations, effectively like a battery.
4 I understand the farming of bio-fuels may have environmental impacts, but nothing like the burning of fossil fuels. It would not be desirable to remove native forest for the cultivation of any crop and this is no longer allowed in any case.
5. Hydrogen is the answer. Clean, easy and relatively safer to transport. Hydrogen provides much more energy per kg than fossil fuels.
Acey, we need to be positive and optimistic. There are solutions. Our governments, industry and science/engineering just need to pull their fingers out, the community will follow.
On a side note I find it disgusting and disgraceful that the USA/UK/Aus spend more on waring with Iraq and Afghanistan in one day than what the world spends on Fusion research in one year !!!!!!
Andy, Andy, Andy,
It's important to be PRACTICAL and REALISTIC rather than optimistic.
Effective fuel cells in sufficient quantity to meet current needs are NOT 10-20 years away. They've been 10-20 years away for the last 50 years now. I'd prefer to think of them as at least 200 years away. That's realistic!
And that makes hydrogen an ineffective fuel. It's not much good touting hydrogen if you can't use it!
BTW do you know where we get most hydrogen from for fuel purposes?
From fossil fuels (natural gas mostly)!
It's ten times (at least) more expensive to extract hydrogen from water than from fossil fuels. Think about that when you figure out the cost of producing energy.
Here's another good article for you to read on ethanol. It may tarnish your optimism, but at least you'll understand why ethanol will never be an effective replacement for fossil fuels: http://slate.com/id/2122961/
And here's a comparison of the amount of hydrogen required to equal a certain amount of another fuel (http://www.hydrogenappliances.com/Hydrogendata.html). You might be interested to note how ineffective ethanol and even hydrogen are in comparison with petrol.
High number implies larger quantity required - ie: to generate the same amount of power 1 cubic metre of hydrogen (a litre), you only require 0.352 litres of petrol or 0.676 litres of methanol. And that's without looking at the relative cost of generating the energy!
Cheers,
Aceyducey
It's important to be PRACTICAL and REALISTIC rather than optimistic.
Effective fuel cells in sufficient quantity to meet current needs are NOT 10-20 years away. They've been 10-20 years away for the last 50 years now. I'd prefer to think of them as at least 200 years away. That's realistic!
And that makes hydrogen an ineffective fuel. It's not much good touting hydrogen if you can't use it!
BTW do you know where we get most hydrogen from for fuel purposes?
From fossil fuels (natural gas mostly)!
It's ten times (at least) more expensive to extract hydrogen from water than from fossil fuels. Think about that when you figure out the cost of producing energy.
Here's another good article for you to read on ethanol. It may tarnish your optimism, but at least you'll understand why ethanol will never be an effective replacement for fossil fuels: http://slate.com/id/2122961/
And here's a comparison of the amount of hydrogen required to equal a certain amount of another fuel (http://www.hydrogenappliances.com/Hydrogendata.html). You might be interested to note how ineffective ethanol and even hydrogen are in comparison with petrol.
High number implies larger quantity required - ie: to generate the same amount of power 1 cubic metre of hydrogen (a litre), you only require 0.352 litres of petrol or 0.676 litres of methanol. And that's without looking at the relative cost of generating the energy!
Cheers,
Aceyducey
Peter 147 said:
As of this moment in time Oil was reported at $67 a barrel US.
Food for consideration for the economy, Peter 147
