Maybe a green economy can work well with the oil industry - we just have to figure out how to make plastic out of gasoline. I think that it is possible.. its probably been done, does anyone know anything about this kind of technology?

Even if gas isn't used for fuel there will still be a market for oil.

??? Gasoline is an oil, just not as long of a chain.

Octane is the usual length, i.e. 8 carbons. Pure iso-octane has an 'octane rating' of 100. But some 7 chain or 9 chain hydrocarbons are likely mixed in. "oil" is typically about 2-3 times in length, and needs to be fractured ("cracked") into shorter chains at refineries. But it is still 'oil', which we call gasoline when it gets to be short enough in length.

And yes, the petrochemical industry can utilize any length hydrocarbon - even methane - to make plastics. All it takes is suitable re-arrangement -- shortening or lengthening the chain.

But why would you crack the hydrocarbon to 8-chain, then lengthen it again to make the plastic?

???

We can easily convert biomass to petroleum via either gasification or flash pyrolysis and hydrogenation, from there we can make all the conventional plastic products, it would be more energy efficient if we convert biomass feedstocks directly into bio-plastics though.

We can easily convert biomass to petroleum via either gasification or flash pyrolysis and hydrogenation, from there we can make all the conventional plastic products, it would be more energy efficient if we convert biomass feedstocks directly into bio-plastics though.

As far as I know biofuels aren't much cleaner than gasoline. You're still burning carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere. Its fuel cells that are considered cleaner since they indirectly use electricity (which can be made from sunlight) to run a motor. Also as far as I know, plastics aren't as dirty to manufacture as they are once they are discarded since they don't decompose well. If this bio-petroleum isn't any cleaner than regular petroleum the only reason it might be manufactured in the future is if we run out of regular petroleum or make it more cheaper then regular petroleum.


??? Gasoline is an oil, just not as long of a chain.

Octane is the usual length, i.e. 8 carbons. Pure iso-octane has an 'octane rating' of 100. But some 7 chain or 9 chain hydrocarbons are likely mixed in. "oil" is typically about 2-3 times in length, and needs to be fractured ("cracked") into shorter chains at refineries. But it is still 'oil', which we call gasoline when it gets to be short enough in length.

And yes, the petrochemical industry can utilize any length hydrocarbon - even methane - to make plastics. All it takes is suitable re-arrangement -- shortening or lengthening the chain.

But why would you crack the hydrocarbon to 8-chain, then lengthen it again to make the plastic?

???

Well, its a way of getting around import policy - you import gasoline (low taxes) and then reconstitute it to make plastic (which is more heavily taxed). Or you import plastic and then crack it apart to make gasoline. Whichever works best at the moment ;)

Ha, I'm just kidding. I'm just trying to find out if renewable energy is really competition to the oil industry. If plastic sells for more than gasoline then it seems that producing plastics will make the oil industry more money - but the demand for plastic is lower than that for gasoline, or is it? I don't really know a thing about the oil industry.

As far as I know biofuels aren't much cleaner than gasoline.

As far as you know indeed, it all depends on the specific biofuel and more importantly its feedstock, for example making ethanol from corn is not much of a net CO2 production improvement over gasoline, making ethanol from a cellulose feedstock and switchgrass, huge reduction in net CO2 production.



You're still burning carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere.

Learn the carbon cycle: as long as a you grow it again you absorb the CO2 you emit so there is not net increase in CO2



Its fuel cells that are considered cleaner since they indirectly use electricity (which can be made from sunlight) to run a motor.

Efficency wise they are dirty as shit, A Li ion battery has up to 95% efficiency in charge discharge cycle, a fuel cell gets 75% max in electrolysis from water and using PEM fuel cell rarely get beyond 50% efficiency in converting the hydrogen back into water and electricity, total efficiency is 37.5% compare to 90%+ for Li ion battery. Fuel cells would just barely have competitive efficiency if were circumnavigate the power plant and made hydrogen out of natural gas, but then you have to contend with the emission form natural gas.



Also as far as I know, plastics aren't as dirty to manufacture as they are once they are discarded since they don't decompose well. If this bio-petroleum isn't any cleaner than regular petroleum the only reason it might be manufactured in the future is if we run out of regular petroleum or make it more cheaper then regular petroleum.

which is why there is heavy emphasis in making bioplastic directly out of biomass like PLA, that is very biodegradable. Not to mention that even if it was made out of biomass converted into petroleum at least your now making a carbon sink as your sequestering carbon dioxide from the air, into plants that you pyrolysis into petroleum and stored in plastic.


Ha, I'm just kidding. I'm just trying to find out if renewable energy is really competition to the oil industry.

When fuel prices hit $4 a gallon gasifying coal to oil and gasoline would become competitive let alone biofuels. It all a matter of how high oil prices get and how low technology brings down the price of biofuels.

As far as you know indeed, it all depends on the specific biofuel and more importantly its feedstock, for example making ethanol from corn is not much of a net CO2 production improvement over gasoline, making ethanol from a cellulose feedstock and switchgrass, huge reduction in net CO2 production.

I'm not sure how this works out - I'm fairly sure biofuel carries as much or less energy/liter as gasoline. If it is burned it should release a similar amount of CO2. Of course, I'm not counting transportation and such. Whats the difference between switchgrass and corn enthanol?


Learn the carbon cycle: as long as a you grow it again you absorb the CO2 you emit so there is not net increase in CO2

Ah, this makes more sense.


Efficency wise they are dirty as shit, A Li ion battery has up to 95% efficiency in charge discharge cycle, a fuel cell gets 75% max in electrolysis from water and using PEM fuel cell rarely get beyond 50% efficiency in converting the hydrogen back into water and electricity, total efficiency is 37.5% compare to 90%+ for Li ion battery. Fuel cells would just barely have competitive efficiency if were circumnavigate the power plant and made hydrogen out of natural gas, but then you have to contend with the emission form natural gas.

I was thinking battery but I said fuel cell. I heard fuel cells aren't as close to being implementable as batteries but it may have been a specific design rather than all fuel cells.


which is why there is heavy emphasis in making bioplastic directly out of biomass like PLA, that is very biodegradable. Not to mention that even if it was made out of biomass converted into petroleum at least your now making a carbon sink as your sequestering carbon dioxide from the air, into plants that you pyrolysis into petroleum and stored in plastic.

At the same time this may be misleading - the environment is getting hurt by heavy agriculture too, maybe as much as it is by increased CO2 levels. If we for instance powered everything with nuclear or solar we could eliminate agriculture altogether and restore nature to what it once was .

I'm not sure how this works out - I'm fairly sure biofuel carries as much or less energy/liter as gasoline. If it is burned it should release a similar amount of CO2. Of course, I'm not counting transportation and such. Whats the difference between switchgrass and corn enthanol?

Al depends on the biofuel, of course if your making gasoline from pyrolsis or gasified biomass it would have the same energy content per gallon because it is chemically identical as it is gasoline, all that changes is where it came from: its feedstock. Now there are many biofuels, ethanol of course is very well know, it has only 2/3 the energy content as gasoline. Both have nearly the same amount of carbon by mass so you are correct on that respect. But ethanol has a high octane rating (105-115) and thus permits engines to be smaller and more fuel efficient. Methanol made from syngas (gasification) has only 1/2 the energy density of gasoline buts its octane rating of 135 has made methanol the fuel of choice for many types of racing vehicles. Butanol provides 95% the energy density of gasoline and a similar octane rating, I and others have long touted it as a superior fuel to ethanol for small car proposes, but its development has been clouded by ethanols fame and its unpleasing odor.

Ethanol from can produce as much as 132 gCO2/MJ using natural gas powered distilleries to as low as 25 gCO2/MJ using corn stover powered distilleries, of course both still use the water intensive and fertilizer intensive process of growing corn. Swtichgrass at worse produces 6 gCO2/MJ, for comparison gasoline produces 90 gCO2/MJ.
http://bioage.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/04/groodeghg.png



I was thinking battery but I said fuel cell. I heard fuel cells aren't as close to being implementable as batteries but it may have been a specific design rather than all fuel cells.

Everything about fuel cells pushes the limits of engineering into a pipe dream. Need new ways to compress or store hydrogen in very small volumes and do so with high efficiency. Need to make hydrogen at high efficiency with minimal CO2 emissions, Need high efficiency fuels cells that are cheap, etc, etc, its a pipe dream made by oil and car companies to make it look they have a goal for a better future, just a future that decades away so they can keep making money selling their crap now.



At the same time this may be misleading - the environment is getting hurt by heavy agriculture too, maybe as much as it is by increased CO2 levels. If we for instance powered everything with nuclear or solar we could eliminate agriculture altogether and restore nature to what it once was .

Well I can only guess at the amazing achievements in biotechnology require to do that! Biofuels made from cellulic feedstocks like switch grass, Miscanthus, hemp, etc could be grown with far less water and fertilizer needs then conventional food crops, those lower environmental damage. Long term genetic engineering and breeding to make perennial food crops would radically reduce fertilizer, water, herbicide and pesticide usages to non-existant in some cases. Of course agriculture is primarily solar powered: plants grow on using solar energy. But if you wanted a nuclear powered food, the best hope would be a genetically engineered geobacter power by electricity made from nuclear power, it would be much more efficient then nuclear powered lighting for a green house, but of course I don't know how well the culinary arts would be able to make of the gelatinous goo geobacter would produce, I would assume a soup (just like the shit they at in the matrix) at best but I'm not a chef by a long run and if they can make fake eel out of tofu then I would guess they could do a lot with bacterial goo as well.