Sugar to Methane?

apology accepted. ty

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i linked this above but still a very important read.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think your "fact" is half correct, half wrong. Is true about about corn based alcohol for two reasons:

(1)The energy content of the alcohol produce is at best equal to the fosil fuels used to produce it, but as aclohol has only about 70% of the energy per gallon the gallons produced can be greater. You use more volume to go a fixed distance. - I.e. Full tank range is reduced, but engine max power is is actually slightly increased IF you car is like those in Brazil, sensing the gasoline/alcohol percentages (either can be 100%) and optimizing the spark timimng, inject etc. for that mix. US 's E85 ready cars do not do this - They just have hoses etc that do not get damaged by the alcohol, which has some water in it.

(2) Corn, especailly if grown in a short growing season like Iowa, requires much more fertilizer. About a year ago, a Noble -prize winner,

By edit insert with thanks to buckybeam -his post 22: His name is Cruzten. I had forgotten but made post about him and his report when it was realeased.
However buckybeam also repeated the popular, but false idea, (Time did much to spread it)* by stating that:

"Brazil are fueling extreme deforestation to produce biofuels for the markets of US "

This is at best a great distortion. The rain forests are being cut by illegal loggers who can sell a single tree for more than $1000. (half a year's wages for many, not doing so.) The wealthy US, Europeans & Japanese need only to look in the mirror to see who is causing the deforestation of the Amazon. Stop buying mahogony furniture. After the best trees are cut, the illegal loggers set fire to the rest to cover their crimes. The burnt patch typically will be subsitance farmed for a few years - couple of cows, some pigs, and lots of chickens trying to exist among the partially-burnt, fallen, tree trunks etc. and then some one of mean will properly clear and fertalize the very poor soil to make pasture. -Stop eating beef would also help if you are concerned. I.e. directly reduce the continuous CO2 production by the cattle also. The only effect alcohol production has on this is that some pastures economically close to alcohol markets 1000 miles from the Amazon are being converted to cane production and thus the cattle are moving in to the new pasture the demand for Mahogany etc. made in the Amazon.
--------
*Time telling the truth in their special edition would not have been good for the sales/circulation. The rich do not like their guilt exposed.

expert in soil microboligic processes pointed out that much of this fertilizer is converted to various nitrogen oxides by the soil bacterial. Gasoline powered cars also make a lot of NOx, especially if they are efficience (use higher compression and temperatures during combustion) but the production of typical Iowa corn sufficient to make a gallon of alcohol produces about 6 to 8 times more in an average car and 10 times more if used in an efficient gasoline car of these NOx compounds on a per mile driven basis than simply driving the car on 100%gasoline would. Very few studies have even considered how much the NOx polution is increased by US's corn to alcohol program.

Thus, GWB's Iowa corn to Alcohol program is bad for your health, bad for your pocket book (unless you are one of his big campaing contruitors in the alcohol from corn)* industy.


Because cane based alcohol yields at least an eight fold gain in energy and requires no fertilizer** when the growing season is 12 months, Tropical sugar cane greatly reduces both CO2 and NOx pollution. Cane must be grown near the market for the alcohol, to be competive economiacally with producers that are near the market. Thus at least 80% is grown within 400 miles opf Sao Paulo or Rio in Brazil and almost none, for alcohol in the Amazon, which is about 1000miles away from these markets. (Almost all grown near the Amazon is for sugar production.) Less than 2% of Brazil's farm land is producing sugar cane. Pasture to for cows (Brazil has world's largest herd) occupies about 50% of the farm land, but it is typically not flat is the reason why it is not in soy beans etc.) When pipelines, now being constructed, designed for alcohol are completed then some of theis pasture will probably convert to sugar cane production - certainly would if USand EU ever decide to let the people drive at much lower cost per mile on tropical alcohol.

------------------
*Actually the oil industry, GWB's long time supporters, especially the Saudis, also benefit from the corn to alcohol program. First it will assure that there is no reduction in US's oil requirements - that can only be achieved rapidly by killing the tariffs and quotas that prevent significant import of energy -efficient tropical cane alcohol. Secondly by keeping the cost of alcohol high, the gasoline demand will not be reduced by the competition from a cheaper, cleaner buring fuel. (See next paragraph why I say "fuel" instead of alcohol here.)

Shell and some others are working on a natural gas to liquids program for the same reason - increasing the demand for natural gas will rase its price and keep most Americans from converting their cars to be able to run on natural gas as the price of gasolin goes up. The oil and drilling industry want and need to keep the US car drivers hooked on their products and GWB is helping them do this with the corn to alcohol program - it is a great (and clever) distraction from what should be done as that lowering the cost of driving by importing tropical alcohol duty free etc. would greatly hurt his maiin campaign supporters.

**Some fertilizer is used as the yield/per acre is increased making a net economic gain. Sugar cane is a grass that does grow wild in Brazil but other grasses including bamboo tend to take its space. Much of Brazil's cane is grown in the State of Sao Paulo and the tropics of Capricon passes thru that state, so perhape 40% of Brazil sugar cane is technically not "tropical sugar" cane. Cuba could produce alcohol for USA cheapewr than Brazil could. With duty free import of alcohol form Cuba, the cost of driving in South East USA could be less than than half the current prices - perhaps $1.50 /gallon. I mention this to show I am not just trying to boost Brazil's exports.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not sure any were needed, except you could have expressed your POV more politely.

Burning cane in the field is an obvious waste and a health hazzard of short term duration. A waste as the leaves could naturally degrade (Or be accelerated in doing so by additon of worms or various fungi etc.) to improve the soil. It is a practice that is decreasing in Brazil, but probable will continue on hillsides too steep for mechanical harvest. There are already (for several years) laws that will phase it out, at least anywhere the machines can cut the cane instead. Hand cutters are paid by how much they cut and every years some litterly drop dead working long hours in the hot sun. None would cut if the field were not burnt first as their loss of blood from cuts made by the sharp leaves would have then dead by noon. That is why the fields are burned.

If the fields are not burned, the the question is what is best to do with the leaves.

One alternative, and I think the wisest in the long run,is for the machine harvesting the cane to strip them off chop them into small pieces, and drop them in the field to be plowed under later. A second alternative is to transport the leaves with the cane to the central point and burn them for their energy content to produce electricity. I doubt this would produce a net yield of energy in the long run.

Certainly the immediate consumption of fossil fuel would INCREASE in Brazil if the leaves were transported with the cane - many more truck miles would be required, but probably more important in the long run is the failure to use them in the field to restore the soil. That will require more fertilizer and that means more fossil fuel use too.

Brazil is blessed with water and an interior that is relatively flat about 1000 meters above sea level where the rain will eventually return. By some measures Brazil's dam on the border with Paragua is still the world's largest (not china's). Brazil's electric power is about 90% cheap hydroelectric power. (We make and export a lot of aluminum as we have the bauxitie also.) Currently 5% comes from the burning of the crushed cane (it had to come the alcohol plant.) and will be at least 6 or 7% soon (even with out burning the leaves for power) as Brazil's alcohol production is growing faster than the electrical demand, but that too is growing rapidly.

The best hydro-electric locations (all near the demand centers) are already exploited, but two huge new ones, some what controversal, have been authorized on the upper Amazon river. The river that flows thru Sao Paulo has large part of its water pumped up over some small nearby hills and then dropped into the sea near Santos, the main port with a head of more than 800 feet - big net energy gain. Most of its travel is in a large lake with sailboats etc.

Perhaps the use of cane leaves in Ausrtralia for electric power makes sense, but I doubt it even there. (It is planned - see buckybeam's link) but a lot of nonsense is done for "ecological" reasons. - I saw a lady get out of her Cadilac and put two coke bottles in the county's recycle bins. - Just the drive inside the park where those bins were located hurt the enviroment more thatn the recovery of that GLASS did. (Are we running out of sand? The recovered glass will need to be melted also.)

 

Cellulose is a sugar. More precisely, a polysaccharide which numerous bacteria and fungi can degrade to short-chain sugars or monosaccharides.

 

I'm well aware of that but it's not a 'sugar' in the general usage of the term due to it's very low rate of digestibility.

As to the statement about "numerous bacteria and fungi", I strongly challenge that. Fungi, yes - but they are VERY slow to work. Bacteria? Please show proof that there are numerous types!

 

Wow!!! Coming from you - who occasionally likes to shout in HUGE fonts. blazing colors, etc. (at which point I simply stop reading) - that's absolutely, pure, 100% hypocrisy!!!:bugeye:

 

I never use colors except to make clear that I am inserting some text or something like that in someone I am quoting. I do us bold, as a convenience to the reader who only wants the main points, as my posts tend to be long. I rarely use enlarged text and when I do it is usually to effect "shouting" as in my joking post sugesting the Harry Truman should be in the long list we could vote for, even though dead.

I am sorry if I offended by saying you could have been less hostile than to call buckybeam's post "nonsense." I have called many post"s nonsense so I do not object to that term; however, when I do so I explain why. I simply thnk that "nosense"is too strong a term, in this case - in large part as I bascally agree your your post and think that no appoligy was needed for your post except if your were sorry for the strong term "nonsense" - that should be applied only to true nonsense and neither of you posted nonsense.

The ironic thing is that the essence of my post is to say to you that you were correct in your post about the burning of cane that "bagasse is cellulose - not sugar" etc. and thus had no need to appoligize to Buckybeam. You were correct. Parts of his post were not correct. There your's were more so, despite his references, IMHO for reasons I gave in my post defending you.

 

billy t

for every study for, there will be a study against. groups are going to be against a dam and groups for a dam. fact, many environmental groups are against the whole cane sugar fuel. the article or letter i quoted does not say that forests are being torn down it says "an incentive for deforestation". and its a real incentive. most agriculture is used for food, real food. food that is eaten. so if we are to grow food and grow fuel, we will have to increase agriculture. there is only so much land. agriculture and its waste has been the cause of deforestation, coral destruction, pollution of rivers and lakes and species extinction/harm. the problems of agriculture are real and are trying to be handled and now people want to increase it, drastic increases and its not for green fuel, its for money. i could argue that it would be necessary for food but, not for cheaper fuel

i do like the turn human waste into methane fuel camp. that is the bomb. waste is about the only thing wasted. but that is changing.

have you seen the opel 135 mpg race car?

 

digestibility has nothing to do with general usage of the term

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Methanosarcina

M. acetivorans
M. baltica
M. barkeri
M. mazei

four types

 

You are certainly right about there being a study to support every economic interest. I tend to thus believe the university studiesnot the ones the oil indeustry has paid for. As far as I know the only university that concluded corn had a positive energy yield was done by the state funded Un. of Illionis. - that state is either number one or second in the number of corn to alcohol refineries being built in it. Alcohol is difficult / expensive to ship to market areas so corn is shipped near them instead. Illinois is getting many new alcohol producers for that reason -close to Chicago and closer to Ohio's many large cities and East Coast markets are well connceted by rail also (mainly for the future when special tank cars exist).

If you are concerned about limited land driving up the cost of food, then much more effective than holding Brazil to less than 2% of it farm land for cane growing would be to limit the land used for beef production (Stop eaing that very inefficient source of food. Brazil could increase it alcohol production (which already a glut on the local market as producers hope the export market will grow) by 10 fold (used less than 20% of it farm land for sugar cane) if it cut beef production by less than a factor of two! - I.e converted less than half the land now in pasture to sugar cane.

That will not happen now as you are correct -it is money that makes most of Brazil's land be in soy beans for growing meat or beef feeding on pasture.

Beef is much more valualbe and cheaper to ship and is shipped all over the world. In some sense the steer is a natural machine that collect the agricultural potential of large areas of land and concentrates it into much higher value packages that ship very cheaply compared to the tons of food each steer eats annully. If you are seriously concerned, and rational, complain about the eating of beef.*

As far as dung into gas that is an improvement India needs. There it is burn for cooking fuel. It best use, however it to return it to the soil as the Plain People of eastern PA do. Their farms are among the world's most efficient in terms of fossil energy required - none as fertilizer or for tractors.
---------------------
*Amost everyone could reduce their beef consuption by 50% and be both healthier and more wealthy. Especailly the later if they switch to driving on tropical alcohol at half the cost of gasoline. The rational cry is "more alcohol, less beef."

 

billy t
well its nice that we agree somewhat. im not 100% arguing with that corn study. i mentioned it earlier. and said the figures are improving

if beef was such a higher profit yield then they would "beef" up beef production and buy fuel. trust me they are not trying to be green. pun intended

so what it does come down to is money. im not so worried about food costs. i grow or harvest most of my own meat. and i/the whole family eats beef rarely. again when we do its one that ive raised at a friends farm. friend that is a sustenance farmer raises one, "green" i might add, for the family and i trade him fish that i have caught. i split it with my in laws. thats pretty much the only meat that my family will eat.

so, back on topic, its not rising food costs im afraid of its an escalation of ethanol fuel, for the reasons i stated earlier. it will happen if we continue down this path.

 

Billy, Does burning the leaves in the field before harvesting have any effect on the cane juice itself?

Does mechanical harvesting produce a better yield per acre?

 

I do not know answer to either. The second would hard to learn as most of the burning for hand cutting is already on hilly land - The drainage is different, the soil is different, the solar exposure is different - I bet those factors are more important.

 

You are correct of course, but that is not how sugar is in use here. With your use potatoes are sugar too. Almost certain, but if you say "not so," I will believe you as I am way out of my field and right in the heart of yours. You seem to be stating that anything that can naturally be cleaved down into the simple sugars is a sugar too.

 

what post number was that? I came late to this thread and do not recall reading it.

 

Thank you.

 

Give me a break!!! Polysaccharides are not something the general public are familiar with. But most of them DO understand how difficult it is for most celloustic-based things - like paper - to break down (be digested by naturally-occurring organisms.)

Four types are hardly what could be called "numerous" in the exceedingly broad world of microbology. Not even close.:bugeye:

 

Ok, now what do you think of the net energy gain comparison between sugar to ethanol, and sugar to methane?

The caloric value is the same for both methods for any given mass of sugar...but the ethanol process requires a large energy input for the distillation process.

This is why I'm guessing that the anaerobic methane process will have a much better input/output energy ratio.

 

#29 its all good