OT Hydrogen economy, not?

[Vaughn Simon]

Jacksonville, FL tops in at just over 874 square miles, making it the
largest US city in the lower 48.

Here is where you can't always depend on statistics.

The political boundries of Jacksonville are much larger than the actual city.
Jacsonville is more of a large county than a city. Many other cities continue
to sprawl by absorbing surrounding suburbs, but the suburbs usually retain their
governments so the statistics don't change because they are based on the static
political boundry.

Vaughn

 

[Balanced View]

Oh poo. You gave away the great secret. It is actually almost 100
times more important than the possible (some claim imaginary) impact
of human production induced CO2 release.

Who is carbon neutral here? Anyone? I calculated my 2 acre wood lot
grown over the last 15 years
more than covers my carbon foot print of 188 lbs. [85 kg.] of carbon
dioxide per month.

 

[Vaughn Simon]

You are correct.

Except I would change the words "political boundaries" to "legal

boundaries", such as may be found on a land survey.

Except that "poltical boundry" is a correct term for the human-defined boundry
of a governmental entity. (Yes, there may also be other correct terms)

"Political Boundry: the borders of a governmental jurisdiction; lines drawn on
paper or maps, as opposed to physical borders."

And then of course, given that definition, your next statment about
"Many other cities..." is irrelevant

Not at all irrelevant, in that I was trying to make the point that land area
statistics alone are a poor way to compare the size and environmental impact of
different cities.

Regards
Vaughn

 

[James Arthur]

And what is it that makes you warmingists so dead-set on meddling with
Earth's natural carbon cycle?

Might wanna aim that thing before you shoot.

It's clear to me that, to a first approximation, man-made
CO2 cannot but warm the planet. It's not at all clear to
me how much, or to what extent feedbacks like clouds,
particulates, bacteria, and so forth interact with this
1rst effect, the net overall effect, or that any of this is bad.

It is absolutely clear that the predictions being
made are not supported by the science.

Being uniformly bad, sensational, and never considering possible
benefits of warming, it's also clear the news coverage is grossly
unbalanced, hence biased.

I am, however, fond of plants.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[danny burstein]

I like truck stops; they tend to have good food. Of course, they
always serve the truckers first.

They've also got a feature that long distance, tired out,
lonely and sweaty truckers appreciate.

Now get your mind out of the gutter.

I'm talking about showers.

 

[James Arthur]

[snip Gore stuff]

I have found another much earlier one citing a Cornell and Berkley study
that is from 2005. They only count the final fuel as a useful output,
and their conclusions are much worse than any of the studies I remember.

Thanks Martin, I nearly missed your post in this giant thread.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002881.html
(never heard of this website before so can't vouch for it)
Original paper online at:
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRethanol.2005.pdf

~~~
"Energy outputs from ethanol produced using corn, switchgrass,
and wood biomass were each less than the respective fossil
energy inputs. The same was true for producing biodiesel
using soybeans and sunflower, however, the energy cost for
producing soybean biodiesel was only slightly negative compared
with ethanol production.

Findings in terms of energy outputs compared with the energy inputs were:
o Ethanol production using corn grain required 29% more fossil
energy than the ethanol fuel produced.
o Ethanol production using switchgrass required 50% more fossil
energy than the ethanol fuel produced.
o Ethanol production using wood biomass required 57% more fossil
energy than the ethanol fuel produced.
o Biodiesel production using soybean required 27% more fossil
energy than the biodiesel fuel produced

(Note, the energy yield from soy oil per hectare is far lower than the
ethanol yield from corn).
o Biodiesel production using sunflower required 118% more fossil
energy than the biodiesel fuel produced"
~~~~

That seems stunningly pessimistic--I'm not sure I completely
believe it, since farmers are pretty hip to economics and
wouldn't be growing biodiesel for their own use unless they'd
added up the numbers and thought it made sense.

The references will allow you to chase things back much further.

And for balance a reposte from NREL, USDA and DOE that is notable mainly
for the huge number of typographical errors in the webpage.

http://www.b100fuel.com/archives/2005/09/nrel-responds-t.html

I think in the USA this may be true, but in the ROW most people could
see that the US fixation on corn to ethanol as biofuel was misguided.
Even some notable US right wing chemists like Uncle Al posting as far
back as 2001 could see this. See for example:

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002881.html
I know who I believe on this one.

I was interested in this because of the 2001 date you mention,
but I didn't see anything from Uncle Al or 2001.
That's the same link as you gave above--perhaps a slip?

I poked at some Sierra Club archives and found little on
the topic, and certainly none of their usual protests
against corn ethanol in or near 2000, for whatever that's
worth. Later, around 2006, they began voicing doubts and
recommending specifically against corn sources.

I'm pretty satisfied that, whatever the position of
"environmentalists," it was Mr. Gore's advocacy and
Mr. Clinton's support that got ethanol going in the US,
starting around 2000.

Regards,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Dispelled?

Okay, discredited, if you prefer.

The "corn lobby" is essentially Archer-Daniels-Midland.

So, you're saying Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore were in ADM's pocket?

From their website:

http://www.admworld.com/naen/fuels/petroleum.asp

Ah yes:
"Ethanol
As an industry leader with decades of experience, ADM can
deliver consistently high-quality ethanol. As the largest
producer of fuel ethanol in the United States [...]
nationwide network of railcars, trucks, barges, and
storage facilities[...]. As the phase-out of MTBE in
gasoline continues, we can help you meet your needs
for oxygen in reformulated gasoline by offering
high-quality, environmentally friendly fuel grade ethanol."

FWIW, from that same page:
"Biodiesel
In addition to ethanol, ADM is a world leader in another
renewable fuel: biodiesel. This renewable, emissions-reducing
fuel is already becoming the “green fuel” of choice in
Europe and Asia."

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

I have never understood why my tax money is used to support the sugar
industry.

It's a historical, political thing, according to a PBS show I saw
years ago on the subject. (I looked, but couldn't find it.)

Basically, a 'gimme' to sugar cane farmers, and a prime reason
for clearing the Florida Everglades.

More recent stuff here, if you're interested:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june08/everglades_06-25.html

Sugar is not a necessary foodstuff, it is more of a human vice like
tobacco. If it became extinct tomorrow, we would all be better off & our taste
buds would ultimately adjust to its absence. Of course, the diabetes industry
would take a heluva hit.

Start reading ingredients and you will quickly see that sugar is added to 80
to 90% of the stuff we eat, but our bodies don't need any of it. For example:
If you want to eat peas without added sugar, you must buy fresh peas, frozen
peas, or perhaps some high-priced "health" brand of canned peas since almost all
canned peas have sugar added. Why? Why not just leave it out?

Vaughn

You're singin' to the choir brother.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Eeyore]

They don't race bicycles or run marathons in the UK?

They most certainly do. Indeed a small part of the Tour de France now
takes place in the SE of England.

It means hypoglycemic in the rest of the world.

Is there are a reason for not using that word as it stands then ?

A popular use of the word over here is to mean having sex, although
other words like shagging have become more popular now. May also imply
or infer casual or wildly abandoned sex.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

There is a lot of whooshing going on.


That is because you totally ignore the context. It would be rather
difficult to contextualize a human's blood sugar level into "hitting
something" or the UK slang of sex. So yeah, anyone in the world
could put it into context, or if their known definitions didn't fit,
they'd be suspicious that there was a context/definition they were
heretofore unaware of.

My apologies for the delayed response further above. It made me smile though. I hear somewhere that some western car had to be
renamed for the Chinese market because it meant 'dog poo' or something similar. Oh the joys of language

Graham

 

[James Arthur]

My fault - the paste buffer contained the wrong link.

Still there is a net benefit searching again with different keywords
gave an even earlier post in 2000 (excuse a few opaque chemistry jokes
in the text). I remember one of the threads...

http://groups.google.com/group/sci....=gst&q=ethanol+corn+Uncle+al#7f6d89e335528b8a

http://groups.google.com/group/sci....=gst&q=ethanol+corn+Uncle+al#bd89b50c6a8d6576


And he was wrong about the longer term economics in Brazil...

FWIW, the paper you linked earlier (Pimentel & Patzek,
NRRethanol.2005.pdf) says cane sugar ethanol was a money-
loser, sold at subsidized prices, and that Brazil had to
abandon those.

The 2001 post was more directly ethanol vs gasoline

http://groups.google.com/group/sci....=gst&q=ethanol+corn+Uncle+al#1d91914a41608e5c


I should add that I ocassionally cross swords with Uncle Al when he is
in environmental vandal mode. His politics are whacky but his chemistry
is mostly rock solid. There may be others in the same vein even earlier.

Several other posters in these threads will give you some idea of the
issues from a chemists perspective at that time.

Quite illuminating. It makes one wonder why we chose this path, and
why we continue to pursue it.

I think for most Americans the answer is this effort *was*
previously relatively insignificant, of no consequence,
and a way of supporting alternative fuels possibilities.

That's no reason for going whole-hog now though.

I've reviewed Pimentel & Patzek, & reluctantly opine they've
done their homework well. Biodiesel and bioethanol as fuels
don't look attractive at all--they destroy energy.

Viewed differently, plants convert sunlight to energy with an
average 0.1% efficiency (0.25% for corn) (P&P). Subsequent
conversion to ethanol requires highly energy-intensive
multiple distillations, resulting in a net energy loss.

OTOH, burned directly for fuel, several crops have very
positive energy balances, esp. pelletized switch grass
for heating.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Vaughn Simon]

You're singin' to the choir brother.

Many of you folks also know that food marketers like to confuse us by using
about a dozen pseudonyms for sugar in ingredient lists. I ran into a new one
today (at least, new to me): "Organic condensed cane juice". In other words,
"concentrated liquid sugar". The bastards!

Vaughn

 

[Don Klipstein]

"Man made CO2" is even in these times, swamped by
nature made CO2.

On the whole, for now nature is removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Atmospheric CO2 content is increasing at a slower rate than humans are
adding CO2 to the carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels.

Human activity is adding about 24 gigatons of CO2 annually, as of a few
years ago. The atmosphere is gaining about 14 gigatons annually. The
difference is largely being dissolved into the oceans.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Tim Williams]

Many of you folks also know that food marketers like to confuse us by
using about a dozen pseudonyms for sugar in ingredient lists. I ran into
a new one today (at least, new to me): "Organic condensed cane juice".
In other words, "concentrated liquid sugar". The bastards!

Mmm, that stuff's good. It's like molasses, but not as strong, sweeter and
runnier (not quite maple syrup consistency). And what's more, it can't
possibly be bad, it's organic as the name suggests!

Tim

 

[Don Klipstein]

Of course plants are inefficient solar collectors. They're starving
for CO2.

How much has their growth rate increased in the past century, when
atmospheric CO2 concentration increased about 35-36%?

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On the whole, for now nature is removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Atmospheric CO2 content is increasing at a slower rate than humans are
adding CO2 to the carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels.

Human activity is adding about 24 gigatons of CO2 annually, as of a few
years ago. The atmosphere is gaining about 14 gigatons annually. The
difference is largely being dissolved into the oceans.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

Just to add another note, the ratio of carbon isotopes in the
atmosphere is changing. Fossil fuel has no C14. (Same is true of
volcanically released carbon, but volcanism hasn't suddenly been on
the steep rise.) It's a smoking gun.

But plant respiration (they breathe out CO2 as well as beathe it in)
does involve significant amounts of CO2. The annual oscillations, the
peak to peak range in the Keeling curves, illustrates this
respiration's magnitude. I think it is larger, in many areas of the
world, than the slope of the annual baseline rise.

And actually, that is another concern, since it's been verified that
plant respiration increases with increasing temperature. Respiration
is the second most important carbon flux in ecosystems, following
gross primary productivity, if memory serves. Because the numbers are
so large, if respiration increases, the equilibrium state might shift
a little, too. I haven't seen anything quantitative on that point,
though. Just something to keep in mind.

Jon

 

[James Arthur]

How much has their growth rate increased in the past century, when
atmospheric CO2 concentration increased about 35-36%?

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

About 6.2% in the last 20 years according to this article:
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586

Hey, that outpaces CO2 ppm increases, doesn't it?

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Just to add another note, the ratio of carbon isotopes in the
atmosphere is changing. Fossil fuel has no C14. (Same is true of
volcanically released carbon, but volcanism hasn't suddenly been on
the steep rise.) It's a smoking gun.

But plant respiration (they breathe out CO2 as well as beathe it in)
does involve significant amounts of CO2. The annual oscillations, the
peak to peak range in the Keeling curves, illustrates this
respiration's magnitude. I think it is larger, in many areas of the
world, than the slope of the annual baseline rise.

And actually, that is another concern, since it's been verified that
plant respiration increases with increasing temperature. Respiration
is the second most important carbon flux in ecosystems, following
gross primary productivity, if memory serves. Because the numbers are
so large, if respiration increases, the equilibrium state might shift
a little, too. I haven't seen anything quantitative on that point,
though. Just something to keep in mind.

Jon

The global climate models assume static vegetation. (Or, at least,
none of the many I reviewed included dynamic vegetation.)

(Not that surprising, because who'd presume to predict future
vegetation? Other than the IPCC, that is.)

So plants must not be important.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

It has been known for hundreds of years that the lactobacillus
acidophilus which sours milk and makes cheese is the only culture
involved in normal sourdough and is used straight from the source, the
milk itself. That how a start is made from scratch. Has been so for
centuries.

Nope. Sourdoughs can be and are traditionally started
by exposing flour and water alone to air, to catch
airborne yeast spores. I've read it in books, and
done it myself.

Regional yeast(s) vary and impart different flavors to
the breads they yield, leading to a certain obsession
about collecting and sampling around for "the best."

http://members.tripod.com/~letsbake/BK110/BK110day9.html

Some places have no local yeast worth mentioning--either
the climate doesn't support enough to start a culture or
it's bad-tasting--while San Francisco is famous for having
a delicious native yeast that's prime:

http://sf0.org/DAX/Wild-Yeast/

The actual culture is a symbiotic(?) mix of bacteria
and yeast; I don't know how the bacilli get in there,
but thank heavens they do.

I'm feasting off a giant 2.5 Kg round I baked yesterday. Yum.

The sanfranciscensis strain has been feed only flour, water, and a
pinch of salt for i think over 150 years. Treating it that way makes
it very sour, adding milk makes it sweeter. Other than that possible
exception sourdough should not contain any yeast. It would be a
contaminant normally.

Certain yeasts wreck it; you mustn't expose your starter to
air within a day or so of using commercial yeast, or the
domesticated frankenspores will take over your starter.

But the original starter has yeast, just a different variety.
Sniff it. It smells yeasty for a reason.

But I think we digress...

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Don Klipstein]

That is a wilfully misleading way to look at it. There is a huge
circulating flux of CO2 that is balanced sources and sinks. The natural
sinks can cope happily with the natural sources and at the moment they
are grabbing about 10 GT of our fossil fuel CO2 too - mostly into
acidifying the oceans which is making life harder for coral reefs.


They are included in the section 7.4.1 Land Surface Parameterisation
around page 422 in my copy of WG I. One unknown for the future is the
proportion of C4 vs C3 plants that will be grown in a warming climate.
This is relevant because C4 plants are more efficient due to their
slightly more sophisticated structure and chemistry. eg

http://science.jrank.org/pages/5192/Photosynthesis-Photorespiration.html

For an quick intro.

Hey, isn't switchgrass a C4 plant? Not that I expect farming it to
cause much of a biomass increase, but they do say it's a good source of
ethanol.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])