Ann, that is the problem with all these alternatives, low yield. To make ethanol you need sugars! The best feedstock is sugar cane. Corn is a reasonable alternative, but not as efficient. I find it interesting that you have all these articles about alternatives, here in Design News and elsewhere, and yet none of them amount to more than a few percent of what is needed. Remember when President George W. Bush started talking about switchgrass? He was roundly criticised. Well, I have heard the Obama Administration talk about it. Recently, the new fad was algae.
In any event, an organic alternative will always have effects on the ecosystem. Large scale cultivation, I mean large enough for energy needs, will have an effect on the oceans. Whether this is good or bad, I do not know, but it will have an effect.
Maybe, look at it from a different angle. Instead of creating massive amounts of energy, let's decrease our usage. Low yields wouldn't be as much as an isuue. The possibility of local production would make a big difference as well.
Jimmy Carter was criticized for telling America to "put on a sweater" when it's cold instead of turning up the heat. If we'd done that 30 years ago, we wouldn't need so many other energy options today.
NadineJ, you are exactly right. In the electrical realm this has been happening. Thus, you hear about a paradoxical situation in which rates may go up because people are using less. This is due to the high fixed costs of electricity.
In the transportation fuels area we have a real problem. The new CAFE standards are important. The fact is that, all complaining about gasoline prices aside, many people still drive cars that get horrible gas mileage. We recently had to replace our ten year old minivan. My wife was looking at all the alternatives and ended up getting a small sedan. Well, I heard her say the other day, as a large SUV went by, that those people were driving a car that got about 10 MPG in the city. That's what large cars got in the 1970s.
In the electicial utility world they call it Demand Side Management (DSM). It was done with large customers first. With SmartGrid technology it is being extended to households. This includes information about usage, and variable pricing. Perhaps we need to do something along those lines for automobiles.
Alternative energy is one of the industries Design News covers. I think Nadine's points are well taken about using less energy. Americans have been wasting it for decades, compared to the simpler lifestyles of some other people on the planet. It's also the case, as we've mentioned several times in articles about alternative energy sources, including this one, that the model for these is quite different from the mono-model for petro-based fuels: "it's unlikely that any one sustainable and alternative fuel and energy source will single-handedly replace petroleum-based sources. Instead, it will likely take a mix." A parallel mix of strategies are going into efforts like the CAFE standards, as Chuck's slideshow showed: http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1366&doc_id=250882
I, you can make as much syn gas as you want by heating yard wastes, etc to 1500F to get H2 and CO/syngas. So H2 is not expensive or hard to get.
There is plenty of waste here in Fla for free and they'll even pay you to take it!! Plus crop, forest wastes makes growing seaweed an expensive choice, source.
What is needed is a eff way to convert it to liquid fuels. anyone know a viable process? FT is so so because it wastes too much in CO2 and waste heat production though the heat could be turned into electricity.
Can one heat woody biomass with H2 under pressure and get sellable, useable HC's especially liquid ones preferably from propane to medium gasolines?
@naperlou - we've already seen that situation here in the Midwest where the rates keep going up due to reduced usage. The worst part about that is the electric company then sticks a note in your bill saying, in essence, "your rates are going up, if you think you pay too much, here's are some things you can do to decrease your usage...". So then they can raise rates again. At the end of the day you are in a worse situation than you were when you started. You are having to deal with crummy light bulbs, less comfortable air, decreased capabilities, but still paying the same (or more) than you were before all this started.
- CAFE standards are not the answer, especially since vehicles that meet these standards aren't for everyone. I'm glad that fuel effecient vehicles are available, but I surely don't want the government forcing me into a small, underpowered car. I lived through the results of the first Carter administration, and am now living through the second Carter administration. ;)
- Ethanol. What's the point? It absorbs water and can't be transferred via pipeline, is harmful to the fuel systems of most vehicles, and decreases MPG. Then you have the government subsidies and all the garbage related to that, and the effects of diverting food crops to energy production. I'd love be able to buy straight gasoline, but it's no longer available in Pennsylvania.
I think the answer might be related to technologies that can convert feedstocks directly into gasoline and diesel, like this:
- As for the smart grid, I have no desire for that at home. I actually implement DR (Demand Response) and SR (Synchronous Reserve) programs as a part of my job, and while it's a nice extra money saver for participating companies (the power company pays us to drop our load) at home it would just be uncomfortable. I don't want the power company telling me that I need to turn off my heater or air conditioner at home, especially if I wasn't being paid nicely for it.
I agree that the potential for this technique appears limited right now and will probably not make a significant dent in the energy demands of the world. However, I applaud the idea of thinking outside the box and trying this new approach. Sometimes experimentation with different ideas can lead to another totally new idea (which would not have otherwise been thought of).
On the other hand, were there any unintended effects with this process? (i.e. will growing too much of this type of seaweed in one location disturb the ecosystem and cause some unanticipated environmental damage?). It would be good to study what other effects this process would have on the ecosystem too.
Greg, thanks for your input. We report on both new technologies that are already ready to go, and on stuff like this that is just out of the lab and taking a different approach from what's already been done. I agree with you on experimentation--that's the essence of science and invention, and inherent in the creative process.
Ann, can you tell if the idea is to harvest naturally occuring seaweed or is it to create "sea farms" at some location in the ocean? If it's the latter, I can imagine that we will be running into the same problems with do with land base development. There will be years of environment impact studies before they could even start one that would produce a usuable level of anything.
Jack, the US research team is focused on conversion technology, whereas the Indian team intends to also intensively farm seaweed. Seaweed cultivation methods already exist: the Indian team wants to improve them, as we state in the article.
One question: Why convert anything into ethyl alcohol when there are a whole lot of better alternatives? By better I mean more energy per unit of weight, and also less corrosive. We have so much ethanol because the corn farmers lobbied for it, NOT because it was a good choice. We should all remember that fact. How about something more like bio-diesel fuel? Just rearrange those carbon-hydrogen bonds and we are there. No, it is not easy and some things that do work may not be practical. That is a challenge.
Before the corn lobby ever heard of alternative fuels, we had a focus on ethanol because researchers were looking for what appeared to be the fastest, more-likely to-be-a-drop-in replacement for gasoline. By the time it became apparent that ethanol might not be the best way to go--whether made from corn, kudzu, seaweed or sugar cane trash--an entire industry had been created, and momentum had become established, no doubt helped by the corn lobby.
Isn't it unfortunate when the best choice is passed by because of expediency or external influence, with logic and insight being ignored. WE might be better off if some of that corn ethanol were provided as a beverage, to discourage folks from driving. That would indeed reduce automotive emissions pollution. (I am not seriously suggesting this as an alternative, but as another point of view).
I hear you, William. The "best technological choice", of course, can look different depending on which lens we are looking through. The economics that drive manufacturing are the reasons behind looking first for a drop-in replacement, not looking first for the "best" technology from some other standpoint, such as least harm to the environment, easiest to produce, easiest/simplest to distribute, or some other factor.
The 100% solar-powered airplane Solar Impulse 2 is prepping for its upcoming flight, becoming the first plane to fly around the world without using fuel. It's able to do so because of above-average performance by all of the technologies that go into it, especially materials.
With major product releases coming from big names like Sony, Microsoft, and Samsung, and big investments by companies like Facebook, 2015 could be the year that virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) finally pop. Here's take a look back at some of the technologies that got us here (for better and worse).
Good engineering designs are those that work in the real world; bad designs are those that don’t. If we agree to set our egos aside and let the real world be our guide, we can resolve nearly any disagreement.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.