This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Transportation, Emissions, Biofuels and Whiskey
By Dian L. Chu, Economic Forecasts & Opinions
A new report released by the Carbon Disclosure Project notes that globally, 98% of transportation runs on fuel made from oil. The transportation sector is responsible for almost 60% of oil consumption in OECD countries.
This heavy dependence on oil has resulted in the transportation sector generating 13% of total global emissions, compared to 26% from the power sector and 14% from agriculture (Fig. 1). And out of all the modes of transportation, road vehicles generate the lion's share of the transportation sector’s total contribution to CO2 emissions --approximately 80% (Fig. 2).
The study further finds demand is projected to grow for both transportation and energy, and about 93% of the increase in energy demand is expected to come from non OECD countries, largely China and India. (Fig. 3 & 4) Demand for commercial transportation is also projected to grow in all regions and the fastest developing nations will have overtaken the OECD as the largest source of commercial transportation demand by 2030. Increased demand on the sector leads to heightened risk of increased greenhouse gas emissions.
While there are ongoing debates about the link between greenhouse emissions and climate change, it is a logical and evolutional process to broaden our energy sources. Biofuels is one of the reasonable, although not complete, solutions for our heavy dependence on petroleum based fuel. However, the food versus fuel debate already has many worried about diverting crops for biofuels would pose a great risk to global food supply and skyrocket food and feedstock prices.
One of the latest biofuel developments is using whiskey by-products. Some Scottish scientists at Edinburgh Napier University figured out a way to turn whiskey waste--pot ale and draff-- into butanol, reports the Guardian. Butanol is a new kind of biofuel that researchers have found to yield 30% more power output than ethanol, and can be used in conventional vehicles without engine modifications. The research team also said it could be used to fuel planes and as the basis for chemicals such as acetone, an important solvent.
When it comes to recycling beer waste, America is ahead of the curve on this. Currently in the US, ethanol is primarily made from corn with 10% blending ratio in gasoline. Coors Brewing Company has been turning its beer waste into ethanol since 2008. CBS also reported beer manufacturer Sierra Nevada Brewing is already in a partnership with E-Fuel to test the use of beer by-products as feedstock for ethanol fuel.
The need to reduce carbon emissions has now become a legal requirement in many parts of the world. The Guardian says this novel whiskey biofuel could be available at pumps in a few years. It seems more environmentally sustainable than using corns or other crops, but it is unclear if a mass commercial application would be economical or feasible.
While we normally prefer whiskey served in a glass, putting whisky biofuel into a gas tank could be a welcoming step to the right direction to diversify our energy sources.
(The entire Carbon Capture Project Transport Report is available at cdproject.net.)
Dian L. Chu, Aug. 20, 2010
»
- advertisements -
Internal combustion engines are only about 8% efficient in terms of recovering useful energy from what was available in the fuel. External combustion engines (power boilers) are about 34% efficient in converting the btu content of fuel to electricity, but there are losses in the distribution system, especially if batteries are involved, so the gain Mark_BC speaks of is not quite so clearcut. In the US and China, the main power source for power boilers is coal, which has only half the hydrogen content of oil, so the CO2 emissions would be twice as much. So unless substantial carbon sequestration technology is forced on the power plant stacks (which you will definitely subsidize 100%), there is no clear thermodynamic or pollution gain from electrifying transportation. There is some political gain due to the obvious possibilities for cronyism, but primarily from coal, which the US has plenty of, vs oil, which the US imports. As long as the oil producers will take paper money for it, we'll burn their fuel first. And Big Oil will resist the change, because they worked a long time to set up the current dependency, and they are transferring significant wealth from the consumers who are forced to buy their product at whatever price Da Boys deem fitting.
Whiskey a Go Go.
Heck, in 1967 you could get 100 miles to the gallon on the Sunset Strip at Whiskey a Go Go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=653hwzWJagE
If you found this interesting, just wait until you get your hands on "Anaerobic digestion of malt whisky distillery pot ale using upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors." Compelling stuff.
Biofuels have a poor EROEI in the US using corn, but in the tropics like Brazil using sugarcane it is closer to 8. But I agree, biofuels are not a real long term solution.
The easiest solution would be to get Big Oil out of control of key patents relating to battery technology and reduce the subsidies to oil products to something approaching alternative energy.
Then we can simply roll out 10's of millions of electric cars (which are better than your gas powered car in virtually every way), and the energy savings simply from not having to refine gasoline anymore would be enough to power the entire EV fleet, the benefit of course being that no foreign oil would need to be imported!
Problem solved, it really would be that easy, but TPTB will not let this happen because gasoline consumption is a cash cow, a massive transfer of wealth from consumers into the hands of government and industry.
Why is there never an analysis of the pollution caused by the political sector?
Talk about worthless CO2 emitters....
And it won't work in any rational sense, since the energy inputs required will render the net output negligible. You will be forced to subsidize it at enormous cost, so the politicians friends can cash in on the scam.
I've got no complaint with brewers and distillers using the by-products to make fuel. My only complaints would be if I have to subsidise it -or- if I am forced to use it and it doesn't work as well (my mileage drops by about 15% if I use ethanol). Maybe the cost of scotch will come down if they can make some extra money on the side. I could really get behind Oban at $45.
OldTrooper-
er..
- have to subsidise it--Check
- forced to use it--Check
- doesn't work as well--Check
You win the Trifecta.
Cost of Scotch coming down? No, that would be against Michelle's Menu Musts Mandate. Only she and Our Dear President can eat ice cream at each and every meal.
- Ned
(OT--this is OT Saturday: you one of those crazy "all the way" kinda guys who jump out of perfectly good airplanes?)
but you don't mind the subsidies to oil?
but you don't mind the subsidies to wind, solar, electric cars at Gov't motors (subsidizing S. Korean lead battery makers, wow, that is creating green jobs in the U.S.)?
- Ned
Or another way to look at the same date is to observe that growing food (14%) generates more emissions than all ground transportation (.13 x .80 = .104 or 10.4%).
So while we are bashing SUV's as the evil cause of global warming when they are in reality a very amount of the total global energy consumption equation. Just saying....
Even if the conversion of beer waste to biofuel works, the amount will be small compared to today's needs. Moreover, draff can be used as food for cows and what use is better is not clear at first sight.
On the other hand, every bit of fuel generated from waste helps.
I have an idea! Me!
- Ned
I thought everyone had figured out biofuels don't work. The EROEI is ridiculously close to 1, or maybe even negative. The only solution is to decrease the demand side. Europe uses 1/3 energy percapita what the U.S. uses.
Blind,
why is that?
Could it be commute distances?
USA is a huge place, my wager is most Eropeans drive less than 10-15 miles a day.if that.
I thought everyone had figured out biofuels don't work. The EROEI is ridiculously close to 1, or maybe even negative.
Actually, biofuels don't presently work, i.e., they are yet competitive with petroleum. But I imagine we'll see the same exponential growth in this sector, just as we are with solar:
"We are awash in energy (10,000 times more than required to meet all our needs falls on Earth), but we are not very good at capturing it. That will change with the full nanotechnology-based assembly of macro objects at the nano scale, controlled by massively parallel information processes, which will be feasible within twenty years. Even though our energy needs are projected to triple within that time, we'll capture that .0003 of the sunlight needed to meet our energy needs with no use of fossil fuels, using extremely inexpensive, highly efficient, lightweight, nano-engineered solar panels, and we'll store the energy in highly distributed (and therefore safe) nanotechnology-based fuel cells. Solar power is now providing 1 part in 1,000 of our needs, but that percentage is doubling every two years, which means multiplying by 1,000 in twenty years." -- http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0692.html
Glaucus, my unicorn presently doesn't produce skittles, either. (Presently, good choice of word for my argument).
So if we are to believe Ray, feasibility will be proven in 20 years, how about bench level? pilot plant, scale up, production plant No. 1, etc.
With capacity factor <<50%, solar solves a very small set of installation issues.
But the thermodynamic truth can not be defeated.
- Ned
[ed: Whiskey byproducts-I'll drink to that!]
Well, um, you track real-time price points relative to performance increases. If, and to whever extent, exponential growth in the solar sector falters, then Kurzweil will be proven wrong. Which he hasn't been so far.
And while we're at it, here's Kurzweil's larger perspective, which begins, but hardly ends, with solar technology:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_on_how_technology_will_transform_u...
If thin fillm solar panels were impregnated into the bodywork of the car during manufacture you could go 15 km a day in the sunshine, definitely not something to sneeze at. The only problem is price, but that seems to be going down. With one major breakthrough in PV technology the whole game could change. Actually, no it wouldn't because Big Oil would be waiting to snap up the patent as soon as it appeared, to keep it off the market for 20 years.
DeeLusional. This is simple math. As a starting point for this simple math, the energy density of a gallon of gas is 33kwh . World uses about a billion gallons of gas a day.
I'll let you do the rest...
Kurzweil can write whatever he wants, it doesn't mean it's true.
My, how profound. Obliterates my argument entirely. Not to mention anyone else's.
Industrial policy is wasteful nonsense; this has been firmly established by centuries of experience. Talk of "diversifying our energy sources"-as if that could be ordered up by politicians-- denotes people with absolutely no knowledge or comprehension of science.