PDA

View Full Version : Do NOT concentrate on the PAST, EFFECT THE FUTURE ! SUPPORT RENEWABLE ENERGY !



Nanoo Nanoo
12th September 2013, 22:36
Ladies and Gentlemen

there is a power in shifting focus from retrospective analysis of un productive mis management to not caring about it .. if you shift your focus to the answers and then proceed into that direction you find the power of the united people becomes a peaceful voice of consumer preference.

I bring to attention one such mechanism.

ETHANOL.

A renewable scource of energy.
Cleaner for the enviroment.
A shifter of the power to the people.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5dSrWrLQeM

Support companies that support the use of renewable energy

http://www.holden.com.au/about/innovation/ecoline/ethanol?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=%2Be85%20%2Bcars&utm_campaign=Awareness+Holden+Ethanol

I have been studying free energy devices and renewable internal combustion fuel scources for just over 2 decades.

Ethanol is a very good stepping stone to cleaner enviroments. Ethanol burns up to 65% cleaner than other avail fuelstocks ( that is an under statement its much higher than that )

Immagine cleaner air ! ?

I have been to countries that use Ethanol and the air is so much cleaner. Food stocks are cleaner , water is cleaner and heath is so much better.

Have a look at converting your car or motorbike to Ethanol.

Every way i look at it ( and i have so many times ) its a win.


Naniu

wolf_rt
12th September 2013, 22:53
while on the surface it appears to be a cleaner fuel, the maths doesn't seem to add up.

From what i have read it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is contained in it. Energy that invariably comes from fossil fuels. And at the cost of soil depletion and increased grain prices.

While cleaner air in the cities would be nice, in this case it would come at a large cost to the environment. There are better solutions.

(unless you have the capacity to produce your own ethanol in which case it would be clearly better)

Nanoo Nanoo
12th September 2013, 23:00
In breif how ethanol works.

Because of its molecular structure, ethanol when heated becomes a gas which can be compressed up to 3 times that of conventional fuels. This means you will use more however the power output of the unit will increase considerably. The other positive is it burns completely and in its conversion from gas to flame its final output is CO2 and H2O

scource wiki

"ethanol is a type of alcohol, in the oxygenated hydrocarbon class of compounds. when it combines rapidly with oxygen in a combustion reaction, the ethanol is used up, and with oxygen forms carbon dioxide and water. ethanol is quite literally gone, it is broken down and reformed into new products, which is the definition of a chemical reaction."

Here is another scource

http://www.east-buc.k12.ia.us/01_02/rxn/kelly/kelly.htm


Naniu

¤=[Post Update]=¤


while on the surface it appears to be a cleaner fuel, the maths doesn't seem to add up.

From what i have read it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is contained in it. Energy that invariably comes from fossil fuels. And at the cost of soil depletion and increased grain prices.

While cleaner air in the cities would be nice, in this case it would come at a large cost to the environment. There are better solutions.

(unless you have the capacity to produce your own ethanol in which case it would be clearly better)

Soil degradation comes from extracting minerals from the soil which happens when you mine oil.

Do some homework about renewable crops.


Energy that invariably comes from fossil fuels. And at the cost of soil depletion and increased grain prices.


can you please show us how you came to this conclusion ?



N

Nanoo Nanoo
12th September 2013, 23:09
while on the surface it appears to be a cleaner fuel, the maths doesn't seem to add up.

From what i have read it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is contained in it. Energy that invariably comes from fossil fuels. And at the cost of soil depletion and increased grain prices.

While cleaner air in the cities would be nice, in this case it would come at a large cost to the environment. There are better solutions.

(unless you have the capacity to produce your own ethanol in which case it would be clearly better)

a larger cost to the enviroment ? renewable energy scource costs the enviroment ? did you think about what you are saying before you said it ?

what are the better solutions ? please , we need to know ? you should qualify your statements.

Thank you

N

Nanoo Nanoo
12th September 2013, 23:44
Here are some answers to misconceptions of 30 yeaer old data surrounding older technology of ethanol production.

http://www.change2e85.com/servlet/Page?template=Myths

Lifebringer
13th September 2013, 00:15
Yes but with the newer electro-magnetic energies and zero point, the electric grid, and transportation of rail can be used, while the personal auto converted engine can have ethanol, because you are NOT using the fossil fuel to make it, but zero point and or electro-magnetic. If you put fossil=electric, you get that answer, but em=electricity=power to make that fuel to drive.

Nanoo Nanoo
13th September 2013, 01:19
Yes but with the newer electro-magnetic energies and zero point, the electric grid, and transportation of rail can be used, while the personal auto converted engine can have ethanol, because you are NOT using the fossil fuel to make it, but zero point and or electro-magnetic. If you put fossil=electric, you get that answer, but em=electricity=power to make that fuel to drive.

Yes i agree fully but can you point to where this technology is and is being used and is readily avail ?

N

Bubu
13th September 2013, 12:58
If Tesla's black box; Stan meyers electrolyzer; schaubergers repulsin and thousands more can be suppressed, what makes you think ethanol is an exemption. First things first.

CarnageCandy
13th September 2013, 13:01
Its all comes down to money - if its too expensive, they wont bother.
I work for an electricity company....(dont hate me...im just an office monkey) Im always bringing it up - and im always hit with MONEY.
Green energy costs allot - the wind farms dont produce enough
Il watch / read the links when i get home, regarding Ethanol <3 silly work pcs block everything.Thanks for an interesting thread. xx

superconsciousness
13th September 2013, 14:31
Ethanol is AN answer among MANY OPTIONS available NOW. The problem I have seen with that as THE answer is water table issues as with all liquid fuels and lack of efficiency of manufacturing large scale. Small scale community use different - especially when harnesing wide range to gasify.

Bottom line: The more we use Renewables that Are Available Now, the faster we will transition OUT of the EMBARGO OF ADVANCED ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES; the more new ECONOMIC MARKETS are created; and the better the understanding that these are the tools of creating civil society. ENERGY=CIVILIZATION.

Number 1 is becoming more efficient and becoming ACTIVE about the energy/electricity that you use to function, yourself, your family. This really reduces the demand.

Number 2 is evaluating what resources are available to you in your community. If in a dry sunny state, there is significant solar from small scale to large scale and better yet, SOLAR THERMAL. Combined with biofuels and new gasifiers, there is no reason not to individually or work with your community to use multi-techs to power. If you are in cold climates, geothermal, plus solar thermal, biofuels, trash to fuel, wind where appropriate with the new storage batteries, tidal...

Deciding that you are no longer going to suck off the tit of Big Brother Energy Company and support the supply line of war is the first step.

Etherios
13th September 2013, 22:53
we have technologies to produce enough energy ... its all about control and the oil is 100% controlled atm so dont expect any change if the same people are making the decisions ... simple as that.

Personally i think using anykind of crops to create fuel is wrong. We need to use the land for survival (food medicine etc) not for fuel.

Nanoo Nanoo
13th September 2013, 23:30
If Tesla's black box; Stan meyers electrolyzer; schaubergers repulsin and thousands more can be suppressed, what makes you think ethanol is an exemption. First things first.

i dont think you have looked at the information i presented in my original OP. It is being used right now and brazil is a prime example as it has been free of Oil for the last 30 years.

the reason and i re iterate the the title of my op ( sometimes i get the feeling people just want to oppose instead of read ) is to CHANGE the power of Oil by supporting alternative renewable energy. This puts power back inot the hands of consumers by intorducing competition.

Brazil again as a good example as a country that has amazing food crops and renewable energy all in the same country. They rely on very little import of food crops as they are self sufficient. So this by example thats happened for the past 30 years is a model that it can work.

As far as introducing technology IE machinery , this is a harder concept because it requires manufacturing of material parts which can be controlled. The mechanical parts rely heavily still on oil based energy production so there in lies a tap.

Creating a liquid from free growing food crops is another animal all together and is infinitely harder to take control over.

This competition gives the whole market place a new meaning.

Food crops , leaving land for food , sugar cane and potatoes can grow together with other food crops , no problem. Food waste is huge and is something we should look at closer if you are worried about food crops, however for the purposes of this thread i present an exciting scource of Renewable Energy as a STEPPING STONE towards releasing such a high level of control over our energies . Once this huge control is broken then i forsee the technologies that already exist may come to the surface and further enforce our position.

In the mean time renewable energy is a fantastic idea as it puts power back into our hands and its creating a cleaner air stock on this planet.

Naniu

¤=[Post Update]=¤


we have technologies to produce enough energy ... its all about control and the oil is 100% controlled atm so dont expect any change if the same people are making the decisions ... simple as that.

Personally i think using anykind of crops to create fuel is wrong. We need to use the land for survival (food medicine etc) not for fuel.

Survival ? try surviving without energy ... without energy and without clean energy you cannot make crops and medicine.

N

Nanoo Nanoo
13th September 2013, 23:35
Ethanol is AN answer among MANY OPTIONS available NOW. The problem I have seen with that as THE answer is water table issues as with all liquid fuels and lack of efficiency of manufacturing large scale. Small scale community use different - especially when harnesing wide range to gasify.

Bottom line: The more we use Renewables that Are Available Now, the faster we will transition OUT of the EMBARGO OF ADVANCED ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES; the more new ECONOMIC MARKETS are created; and the better the understanding that these are the tools of creating civil society. ENERGY=CIVILIZATION.

Number 1 is becoming more efficient and becoming ACTIVE about the energy/electricity that you use to function, yourself, your family. This really reduces the demand.

Number 2 is evaluating what resources are available to you in your community. If in a dry sunny state, there is significant solar from small scale to large scale and better yet, SOLAR THERMAL. Combined with biofuels and new gasifiers, there is no reason not to individually or work with your community to use multi-techs to power. If you are in cold climates, geothermal, plus solar thermal, biofuels, trash to fuel, wind where appropriate with the new storage batteries, tidal...

Deciding that you are no longer going to suck off the tit of Big Brother Energy Company and support the supply line of war is the first step.

excellent post ! thank you , its about getting behind new and renewable energy. this changes the power structure.

changing the power structure gives us back freedom of choices and ultimately our civil liberties.


N

Bubu
14th September 2013, 00:25
Personally i think using anykind of crops to create fuel is wrong. We need to use the land for survival (food medicine etc) not for fuel.

I agree. Fact anything that smokes can be burned, inside the ICE. Wood leaves included and also can be converted into ethanol by thermal cracking or steam reforming using the heat of exhaust of the engine that burns the ethanol. With the added advantage of adding water or converting water to fuel once it reacts with the woodgas. But that would mean burning our forest.

I agree with you, N that the technology is doable as exhibited by your example, Brazil, But my feeling is that there lies a trap ahead once the rest of the world follow suite.

In the meantime why don't you put an electrolyzer inside the microwave and see what happens.

Bubu
14th September 2013, 01:13
By the way use the minimum microwave power and increase as needed. Dad Garrets periodic pole reversal will also greatly increase the efficiency. Water is more abundant safer (produce on demand), cleaner and can be use on ICE. I just do not see the rationale of burning the forest when we can burn water.

water is FREE

Nanoo Nanoo
14th September 2013, 02:26
By the way use the minimum microwave power and increase as needed. Dad Garrets periodic pole reversal will also greatly increase the efficiency. Water is more abundant safer (produce on demand), cleaner and can be use on ICE. I just do not see the rationale of burning the forest when we can burn water.

water is FREE

so you want to burn our most precious rescource ? water ? i know it returns back to water once it is used.. i have built hydrogen generators.. ethically i think water is a rescource to be left alone. hmmm i dont think you have thought this through. Once water becomes a fuel scource try purchasing it or getting it free... it will be controlled and regulated. Not what i envisage as a future for water.

water is the one thing we should leave well alone.

making crops to harvest for energy , renewable energy is by far a better stepping stone. a good example is if we were to use hemp plants for textiles instead of wood pulp we would have to use 5 times less chemicals in processing the fibres and and end result is a much stronger fibre based product.

this is the same thing ... instead of using oil which is mined out of the earths crust and de mineralises the planet ( which arguably is the worst thing for the planet ) we can manufacture a clean energy scource which can run the billions of existing cars and machinery with minimal conversion.

In thailand you can purchase wood grain alcohol and run your car or moped on it and its sold by farmers. its a clean fuel and the machinery runs better on it.



N

Spike
14th September 2013, 02:47
I think hydrogen is the way to go. You need deionized water, DC power, palladium as the fuel cell.
Fuel cells using palladium catalysts generate power by the electrochemical reaction in which oxygen and hydrogen are combined.


The thing that bewilders me is that why cant it get above 70% Electrical Efficiency? What metal is the most active catalyst for High-temperature fuel cells.

Types of Fuel Cells

Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEM)

Electrolyte: Solid polymer membrane
Catalyst: Platinum is the most active catalyst for low-temperature fuel cells
Operating Temperature: Around 175-200⁰F
Electrical Efficiency: 40-60 percent

PEM fuel cells operate at relatively low temperatures, have high power density, and can vary output quickly to meet shifts in power demand. PEMs are well-suited to power applications where quick startup is required, such as automobiles or forklifts. Single PEM units range from several watts to several kilowatts, and can be scaled into larger systems – the largest to date is a 1 megawatt PEM stationary power plant. PEM systems are available today for a variety of applications, with sales focused in the telecommunications, data center and residential markets (primary or backup power), and to power forklifts and other material handling vehicles. PEM fuel cells are also used in buses and demonstration passenger vehicles – major auto manufacturers anticipate the start of commercial fuel cell vehicle sales around 2014-2016. PEMs are fueled with hydrogen gas, methanol, or reformed fuels.

High-temperature PEM (HT-PEM) fuel cells are similar to PEM fuel cells, but operate at higher temperatures, between 250⁰F and 390⁰F. HT-PEMs are often integrated with fuel reformers, permitting operation using wider variety of input fuels. HT-PEMs can be used to power vehicles as range extenders for batteries, and small scale commercial buildings and homes.

Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFC)

Electrolyte: Solid polymer membrane
Catalyst: Platinum is the most common
Operating Temperature: Around 125-250⁰F
Electrical Efficiency: Up to 40 percent

DMFCs are similar to PEM fuel cells in that they both use a polymer membrane as the electrolyte. However, in DMFC systems the anode catalyst itself draws the hydrogen from liquid methanol, eliminating the need for a fuel reformer. The low operating temperature makes DMFCs attractive for miniature applications such as cell phones, laptops, and battery chargers for consumer electronics, to mid-size applications powering electronics on RVs, boats, or camping cabins.

Alkaline Fuel Cell (AFC)

Electrolyte: Potassium hydroxide solution in water
Catalyst: Can use a variety of non-precious metal catalysts
Operating Temperature: Around 225-475⁰F
Electrical Efficiency: 60-70 percent

NASA has used hydrogen-fueled AFCs on space missions since the 1960s to provide both electricity and drinking water. AFCs are poisoned easily by small quantities of CO2, and are thus deployed primarily in controlled aerospace and underwater environments.

Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell (PAFC)

Electrolyte: Liquid phosphoric acid ceramic in a lithium aluminum oxide matrix
Catalyst: Carbon-supported platinum catalyst
Operating Temperature: 350-400⁰F
Electrical Efficiency: 36-42 percent

PAFCs can operate using reformed hydrocarbon fuels or biogas. Anode and cathode reactions are similar to PEMs, but since operating temperatures are higher, PAFCs are more tolerant of fuel impurities. PAFCs are frequently used in a cogeneration mode, in which byproduct heat is captured for onsite heating, cooling, and hot water (also called combined heat and power, or CHP). PAFCs are commercially available today with systems operating around the world at high-energy demand sites such as hospitals, schools, office buildings, grocery stores, manufacturing or processing centers, and wastewater treatment plants.

Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell (MCFC)

Electrolyte: Typically consists of alkali (Na & K) carbonates retained in a ceramic matrix of LiHO2
Catalyst: High MCFC operating temperature permits the use of lower-cost, non-platinum group catalysts
Operating Temperature: Around 1,200 ⁰F
Electrical Efficiency: 50-60 percent

The high operating temperatures of MCFCs means that hydrocarbon fuels can be converted to hydrogen within the fuel cell itself (internal reforming). MCFCs are not prone to CO or CO2 “poisoning” – they can even use carbon oxides as fuel – making them more attractive for fueling with gases made from coal. MCFCs are ideal for large stationary power and CHP applications, and are available as commercial products, with dozens of power plants deployed at food and beverage processing facilities, manufacturing plants, hospitals, prisons, hotels, colleges and universities, utilities, and wastewater treatment plants worldwide.

Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC)

Electrolyte: A solid ceramic, typically yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ)
Catalyst: High SOFC operating temperature permits the use of lower-cost, non-platinum group catalysts
Operating Temperature: About 1,800⁰F
Electrical Efficiency: 50-60 percent

High-temperature SOFCs are capable of internal reforming of “light” hydrocarbons such as natural gas, but heavier hydrocarbons (gasoline, jet fuel) can be used, though they require an external reformer. There are two configurations of SOFC fuel cell systems: one type uses an array of meter-long tubes, and another uses compressed discs. Tubular SOFC designs are closer to commercialization and are being produced by companies around the world. SOFCs are suitable for large stationary applications, and are being deployed across the country at data centers, office buildings and retail stores. SOFCs are also being demonstrated for use as vehicle auxiliary power units and tested for small stationary applications, such as homes and apartments in the U.S., Japan, and Germany.

http://www.fuelcells.org/base.cgim?template=types_of_fuel_cells

My dad's work
http://www.parker.com/portal/site/PARKER/menuitem.b90576e27a4d71ae1bfcc510237ad1ca/?vgnextoid=c38888b5bd16e010VgnVCM1000000308a8c0RCR D&vgnextfmt=default



Well it looks like i answered my own question lol.
The material could replace platinum in hydrogen vehicles.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/412853/a-catalyst-for-cheaper-fuel-cells/

Some cool snipets of info

material carbon iron nitrogen compound

costs between $1,000 and $2,000 an ounce

Location exclusively in just two countries: South Africa and Russia

(INRS) in Quebec have dramatically increased the performance of this type of iron-based catalyst


THIS IS HUGE IT WILL REPLACE PLATINUM BASED FUEL CELLS


John Tittor says two things that pop out at me.

Hydrogen fuel cells and more efficient solar cells are big deals.

Russia is now our largest trading partner.

Spike
14th September 2013, 02:58
By the way use the minimum microwave power and increase as needed. Dad Garrets periodic pole reversal will also greatly increase the efficiency. Water is more abundant safer (produce on demand), cleaner and can be use on ICE. I just do not see the rationale of burning the forest when we can burn water.

water is FREE

so you want to burn our most precious rescource ? water ? i know it returns back to water once it is used.. i have built hydrogen generators.. ethically i think water is a rescource to be left alone. hmmm i dont think you have thought this through. Once water becomes a fuel scource try purchasing it or getting it free... it will be controlled and regulated. Not what i envisage as a future for water.

water is the one thing we should leave well alone.

making crops to harvest for energy , renewable energy is by far a better stepping stone. a good example is if we were to use hemp plants for textiles instead of wood pulp we would have to use 5 times less chemicals in processing the fibres and and end result is a much stronger fibre based product.

this is the same thing ... instead of using oil which is mined out of the earths crust and de mineralises the planet ( which arguably is the worst thing for the planet ) we can manufacture a clean energy scource which can run the billions of existing cars and machinery with minimal conversion.

In thailand you can purchase wood grain alcohol and run your car or moped on it and its sold by farmers. its a clean fuel and the machinery runs better on it.



N


For one the water would be cleaner coming out then before you put it in your car.

Two you can recycle the water that comes out the tailpipe put it back into your car's fuel cell lol derp.

Three putting a price on water would be hard to do when you have lakes ponds rivers not sure if you can use salt water i dont see why not.


I would like to see oil plants, nuclear power get replaced by this. BP can suck a fat one.

Etherios
14th September 2013, 03:21
and thats why i say we should spend any food / plants we can feed on for fuel. But the very reason you said about the price tag is why we will never see this happening till we kick them off the top of humanity.

Nanoo Nanoo
14th September 2013, 22:37
ugh ... lord give me strength ...


N

wolf_rt
15th September 2013, 02:00
while on the surface it appears to be a cleaner fuel, the maths doesn't seem to add up.
From what i have read it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is contained in it. Energy that invariably comes from fossil fuels. And at the cost of soil depletion and increased grain prices.
While cleaner air in the cities would be nice, in this case it would come at a large cost to the environment. There are better solutions.
(unless you have the capacity to produce your own ethanol in which case it would be clearly better)

a larger cost to the enviroment ? renewable energy scource costs the enviroment ? did you think about what you are saying before you said it ?
what are the better solutions ? please , we need to know ? you should qualify your statements.
Thank you
N

Can you post something showing why you consider ethanol renewable?

As far as i know most ethanol that is used for fuel (at least in Australia/US) is made from commercially grown, GM corn. Farming in this way definitely causes soil depletion (loss of nutrients and bio-activity). which would seem to severely offset any small saving in the net cost to produce a unit of energy with ethanol vs oil.

How is the ethanol used in Brasil made? If we can make ethanol from waste sources or something then i'm all for it, my only issue is with calling ethanol made from the commercial cropping of corn renewable.

Etherios
15th September 2013, 02:09
ugh ... lord give me strength ...


N

Well this is a good point to make ... but back to reality.

You focus too much on the clean part and miss the actual energy benefits. As many have said before ... its been years that we have for example cars powered by water (creation of Hydrogen etc) but they just dont let the technology gain any ground before its bought and hidden.

The hole recycle theories are a scam. We dont need to recycle or use "clean" energy sources ... we just need to use different types of resources than what we use now.

In these forums there are hundreds technologies that can provide "clean" energy without effecting our food or our environment. Thorium reactors came to mind, E-CAT also etc etc ...

The technologies exist and can become economical in a matter of years IF ... thats a huge IF ... they let them progress. I dont understand why you disagree on this ... but its your choice :-)

They control Oil so ANYTHING that change the defacto leadership position of Oil is against their plans. Oil effects many different areas of our society ... from energy to food and clothing.

As you said many Oil/plastic products can be covered by using hemp with huge ecological benefits ... but it will effect Oil so ... they are stopped. There is no best step to follow here ... they either let tech grow or they wont.

Nanoo Nanoo
15th September 2013, 02:59
while on the surface it appears to be a cleaner fuel, the maths doesn't seem to add up.
From what i have read it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is contained in it. Energy that invariably comes from fossil fuels. And at the cost of soil depletion and increased grain prices.
While cleaner air in the cities would be nice, in this case it would come at a large cost to the environment. There are better solutions.
(unless you have the capacity to produce your own ethanol in which case it would be clearly better)

a larger cost to the enviroment ? renewable energy scource costs the enviroment ? did you think about what you are saying before you said it ?
what are the better solutions ? please , we need to know ? you should qualify your statements.
Thank you
N

Can you post something showing why you consider ethanol renewable?

As far as i know most ethanol that is used for fuel (at least in Australia/US) is made from commercially grown, GM corn. Farming in this way definitely causes soil depletion (loss of nutrients and bio-activity). which would seem to severely offset any small saving in the net cost to produce a unit of energy with ethanol vs oil.

How is the ethanol used in Brasil made? If we can make ethanol from waste sources or something then i'm all for it, my only issue is with calling ethanol made from the commercial cropping of corn renewable.

i did ... in my first post .. why did i post a video showing you this stuff and why did you not watch it ? its sugar cane actually which is the renewable scource of energy

crops , like any crops do not degrade the earth , the earth is actually designed to grow stuff ( which is has been for millions of years in case you havent noticed )

proper growth of crops and re toiling soil for growing crops is actually healthy for soil re generation. Burning crops is actually one of THE healthiest ways to re generate soil minerals. SO your arguments lack any research.

I have provided all of the positive results and too fors this technology however you proceed without having read or watched them.

I think either you are hired to derail this thread or you are ignorant. possibly mututally significant to your process.

You can make ethanol from anything including waste products : 0 ) and its going to take a huge steak in our future and for that i am truly grateful.

Naniu : 0 )

Nanoo Nanoo
15th September 2013, 03:02
ugh ... lord give me strength ...


N

Well this is a good point to make ... but back to reality.

You focus too much on the clean part and miss the actual energy benefits. As many have said before ... its been years that we have for example cars powered by water (creation of Hydrogen etc) but they just dont let the technology gain any ground before its bought and hidden.

The hole recycle theories are a scam. We dont need to recycle or use "clean" energy sources ... we just need to use different types of resources than what we use now.

In these forums there are hundreds technologies that can provide "clean" energy without effecting our food or our environment. Thorium reactors came to mind, E-CAT also etc etc ...

The technologies exist and can become economical in a matter of years IF ... thats a huge IF ... they let them progress. I dont understand why you disagree on this ... but its your choice :-)

They control Oil so ANYTHING that change the defacto leadership position of Oil is against their plans. Oil effects many different areas of our society ... from energy to food and clothing.

As you said many Oil/plastic products can be covered by using hemp with huge ecological benefits ... but it will effect Oil so ... they are stopped. There is no best step to follow here ... they either let tech grow or they wont.

i think you have been reading someone elces posts and mistaking them for mine .. anyway back to the ethanol , hiccup !

wolf_rt
15th September 2013, 06:26
crops , like any crops do not degrade the earth

It seems pretty obvious to me that monocropping is not natural, and degrades the earth. There is also the issue if the whole world swaps to ethanol, there will be a large percentage of farmland that will be tied up in producing fuel, the same farmland that is struggling to feed us now, and being reduced year by year from our poor farming practices.

Unfortunately i can't watch the youtube video at the moment (slow net).
Your other links talk about ethanol from corn, and while it is great that improvements to distillation procedures have increased the net energy yield above par, unless all the machinery that produces the ethanol is run on ethanol, there is minimal benefit to the environment that i can see. and it all comes at a LARGE cost to the soil... The farming practices used to grow corn for livestock/ethanol production most certainly damage the soil.

A massive benefit to the environment could be obtained if we stopped feeding cows grain.

Perhaps you can link some info on the sustainable agriculture practices used to produce that sugar cane you mentioned?

If you have done the research you claim, please present your evidence of ethanol from crops as being renewable. I will be as delighted as you apparently are, if you can show me how this is actually sustainable.

Nanoo Nanoo
15th September 2013, 08:41
im still waiting for YOU to answer my questions ? where are they please ?

i did ask first.

N

wolf_rt
15th September 2013, 10:47
a larger cost to the enviroment ?
I was under the impression that corn alcohol was not returning a net energy gain, i stand corrected. This does not address the cost of soil degradation, which clearly occurs in much commercial ethanol production

renewable energy scource costs the enviroment ?
i am challenging you to show me that this is indeed renewable and sustainable on mass, it comes down to the farming methods used.

did you think about what you are saying before you said it ?
yes.

what are the better solutions ?
compressed air from 'tromps' is one possibility, at least near waterways. Electricity from existing sustainable generation is another, although capitol cost and battery recycling are problematic.

Nanoo Nanoo
15th September 2013, 11:19
ok so maybe we are getting off on the wrong foot. You really need to watch the video as it shows the last 30 years of brazils history and sucessful conversion to Elthanol as a major fule scource and booster of their economy. the video states it supplies 10's of thousands of families with work where there was un employment.

Sugar cane is grown for sugar , Potatoes are grown for food just like corn. If these crops are used for food instead of fuel does it degrade the soil ? because it dosent matter what you do with the crop once its grown. This is what i dont understand about your argument.

How exactly does growing crops for fuel degrade the soil ? can you show me how as i do not understand your point and i respectfully wish to know.

Cheers

N

N

wolf_rt
15th September 2013, 16:06
Hopefully i will be able to watch the video tomorrow if my internet is working better.
Sorry if my first post was a bit combative, Hopefully through conversation we can both reach a better understanding of ethanol as a fuel.

Since you have shown there is a net gain in energy:
It would be possible to run all the machinery used to produce/transport ethanol, on ethanol and still have a surplus.
So all good there.

My other concerns aren't about ethanol itself but rather the systems used to produce it.
I DO believe that in small scale operations and properly managed larger operations that ethanol could be produced sustainably, it's just not now.

1. Land use
What's sustainable for brazil (are they self sufficient agriculturally?) might not be sustainable for everyone. If petrol use was completely replaced by alcohol what percentage of the world's cropland would be needed? What effect would this have on grain prices/3rd world?


2. Monsanto/GM
This may not be an issue for Brazil, but it is for much of the western world.
ALL (afaik) the corn grow for ethanol is proprietary GM seed. You must sign a contract that FORCES you to use farming techniques that have been proven to destroy soil and reduce yields.


3. Big-Ag
Large scale farming of energy crops supports 'Big-Ag'. This form of agriculture clearly has a negative effect on soil health and nutrient content of crops.


4. Job Creation
Personally i view any attempt at 'job creation' as supporting the tragically flawed economic model we are lumbered with. There just isn't enough work that needs to be done! The amount of productive jobs has fallen to a fraction of all the 'work' being done.
While it's no fault of ethanol, i fear much of the work created around this industry by big-ag and governments is 'make work'... ie, people to dig the oil, transport, farmers, fertilisers, more transport etc... we dig up a unit of energy and then turn it into a different unit of energy all the while 'producing' jobs.
This is clearly inefficient, and hence bad for the environment.
Basically, if everyone did 10 hours of productive work, that would produce the same amount of GDP, and everyone would have an extra 30 hours a week on there hands.
This would require a massive change in society which scares the governments.
Hence governments 'produce' jobs. Its a whole different subject, but 'jobs' are bad for the environment...


5. Soil Degradation
Whenever you plant many acres of one type of plant you have moved away from the natural model (permaculture) that provides abundant yield while improving the soil.
the 'yield' that comes from any monocrop comes out of the soil and chemical (fossil) additions that are made to the soil.
We are taxing out soils extremely heavily due to our desire for grain already. It is basically impossible to grow any type of grain in a commercial quantity inside a permaculture (sustainable) system.

Giving grain to cows is probably the most stupid thing humanity has ever done, the environmental damage caused by this practice is incalculable. Cows digest about 30% of the grain, it's about the worst thing you could feed them.
All this grain has to be grown in a 'Big-Ag monoculture' system that definitely does deplete soils.

The connection with ethanol is that different parts of the grain can be used for both cattle feed and ethanol so on the surface it looks like a win.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Feeding cattle grain is just SOOO bad that anything that encourages it has to be examined very closely.
Its hard to find literature to support this but it can be found. people just don't consider the implications of feeding cows grain.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

Nanoo Nanoo
15th September 2013, 17:59
here is a good article on most of what you asked.

http://sugarcane.org/sustainability/producing-food-and-fuel

obviously there are always draw backs to any imperfect technology but it looks like the good out weighs the bad in this instance.

i would prefer as my first choice electromagnetic motor propulsion and electricity .. which is the cleanest to use but until the power structure of present energy production shifts , emerging tecnologies may be "over looked". as an already existing stepping stone Ethanol is a good way to enforce a shift.

after that who knows what could happen.

N

wolf_rt
15th September 2013, 22:44
sugar cane certainly seems like a far superior crop to corn as far as environmental impact goes.

Nanoo Nanoo
22nd September 2013, 21:04
here is some positive news

it seems ethanol is making waves , lets support this so the oil dollar does nothave such a stronghold

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/20/ethanol-requirements-good-for-america-economy-energy-security/

N

Flash
22nd September 2013, 22:52
A thread with only two participants... hum, you need a third one


How exactly does growing crops for fuel degrade the soil ? can you show me how as i do not understand your point and i respectfully wish to know.

Because of the enourmous quantities needed to replace petroleum, many cultures that feed people would be/are converted into corn cultures for ethanol, because it simply pays better, for the moment. But still, the sheer numbers of plants needed to replace petroleum is astronomical. Therefore deforestation for growing corn, therefore replacement of cultures that feed human beings by corn for ethanol. When ethanol was introduced 20 years ago, the price of food went way up because fields were being converted for corn and the demand was higher than the offer on the previous years. Who suffered?? Not us, in developed societies we saw nothing, it is the third world societies that went starving a quite a bit more.

My readings twenty years ago, don't ask me the source - but it could be found going 20 years back.

As for burning the land to feed it, this may be true for minerals as long as they can penetrate the land. The burning methods were used in Central America quite a lot, and what happened is that tree/bush roots were burned with time as well, the land was not worked through with roots growing, it became as hard as stone, and nothing grow anymore, therefore more starvation yet. One have to really consider the type of land ones has before burning. (Burning was brought by the Spaniards there).

My personal experience in El Salvador with campecinos.

Nanoo Nanoo
23rd September 2013, 02:27
If we read the supplied article it will alay most of your fears of the soil etc hence why i supplied the article. Its a great read.

One thing i need to point out is does anybody think about the Oil and Minerals being sucked out of the earth at a rate of 1 billion barrels a day ( or whatever the number is ) and our complete in ability to ever replace these mineral stocks ? At least with top soil we can re generate and tend to the soil by re mineralising it
( through burning which supplies ash to the ground ) we have acess to the soil and we can treat it to re generate it, Oil refineries ? has anybody ever tried to re mineralise the soil around them ? Nope !

No access to the deep caverns tfor re mineralisation.. no access to re toil the mineral bases or soils or rocks that are displaced and sucked out then burned, THIS IS DESTROYING THE PLANETS LIFE BLOOD. THIS WILL ULTIMATELY DESTROY FOOD CROPS.

The common misconception is that once you use a filed a few times that the soil becomes arid and if you were to abuse it , yes that would happen, but why would you abuse it ? There are wine growers and farmers that have been using the same patch of land for generations and they learn to re toil and mineralise soil with burning and manure restocking.

This is something thats been done for millenia ..

Theere is no concieveable argument for not using Ethanol.

N

Flash
23rd September 2013, 03:27
Gosh,just lot my post, when I push the post button, it got me a message: unaccessible page. I will rewrite tomorrow.

Nanoo Nanoo
25th September 2013, 09:12
i hate it when that happens ...


N

Nanoo Nanoo
2nd October 2013, 07:57
bumping around in time

N

kfm27917
16th November 2019, 01:00
interesting analysis of renewable energies at
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2019/11/14/do-the-worlds-energy-policies-make-sense/