Fishing - Ethanol again

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)

- Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Ethanol again (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=26097)

Recently, we had a thread about ethanol and its environmental effects.
There was a study recently commissioned in Alberta to look at biofuels.
This included the environmental impact of ethanol use and production.
The executive summary is at http://www.aia.ab.ca/policy/ and the full
text is at

http://www.aia.ab.ca/policy/thebiofuelsfrenzy.pdf

in case there is still some interest.

Tim Lysyk

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:45:49 GMT, "J & D Moe"
wrote:

I hadn't run across that yet, as I have (mistakenly) limited my searches to
U.S. production and it's affects. Interesting to note how many Canadian
plants are located on or near Lake Huron. (not that it means anything).

Hi, Jeremy

If you can get the latest issue of the magazine Motor Trend, there is
a very good article about ethonol, bio-diesel, and other alternate
fuels.

Dave

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:45:49 GMT, "J & D Moe" wrote:

"Tim Lysyk" wrote in message
news:bXTVh.9156$VF5.1555@edtnps82...
Recently, we had a thread about ethanol and its environmental effects.
There was a study recently commissioned in Alberta to look at biofuels.
This included the environmental impact of ethanol use and production. The
executive summary is at http://www.aia.ab.ca/policy/ and the full text is
at

http://www.aia.ab.ca/policy/thebiofuelsfrenzy.pdf

in case there is still some interest.

Tim Lysyk

Thanks Tim,

I hadn't run across that yet, as I have (mistakenly) limited my searches to
U.S. production and it's affects. Interesting to note how many Canadian
plants are located on or near Lake Huron. (not that it means anything).

Um, not everything on the planet is US-based...heck, take Chinese food -
you can get some of the best Chinese food in the world outside of the
US, if you can believe THAT!

IOW, expand your horizons by expanding your borders...here's a hint that
might seem like deja vu all over again - try looking at info on Brazil
and sugarcane.

HTH (again),
R

Jeremy Moe

"Tim Lysyk" wrote in message
news:bXTVh.9156$VF5.1555@edtnps82...
Recently, we had a thread about ethanol and its environmental effects.
There was a study recently commissioned in Alberta to look at biofuels.
This included the environmental impact of ethanol use and production. The
executive summary is at http://www.aia.ab.ca/policy/ and the full text is
at

http://www.aia.ab.ca/policy/thebiofuelsfrenzy.pdf

in case there is still some interest.

Lots of interest here.

The picture painted at the above links appears rather bleak. But then, the
prospects for continued reliance on a diminishing supply of fossils fuels is
even more so.

There is, of course, much too much information in that report to do justice
to in a discussion here.......particularly given the inevitable fate of such
discussions. But there is one thing I'd like to touch on because I think it
typifies a fundamental problem with ALL such discussions (and has already
been mentioned here).

At the end of issue # 10, I find the following statement: "...production of
one litre of ethanol requires between 4 and 8 litres of water. Most of this
water must come from underground sources and this could reduce water tables
in the aquifer."

It doesn't take much of a chemist to understand that a liter of ethanol does
not result from the conversion of 4 liters of water, let alone 8. In fact,
I don't know exactly how much water is actually consumed in the process of
fermentation but I'd bet a shiny new nickel that it is less than 1 liter per
liter of finished product. Much of the rest of the 4-8 liters is
essentially the vehicle for a culture medium which remains at the end of the
fermentation. Allowing some loss for sloppy distillation and cooling
practices, MOST of the 4-8 liters SHOULD still remain at the end of the
entire process as useable water. In places where sufficient bodies of
surface water in the form of streams or lakes are available, the bulk of
that water is (typically) eventually returned to the source, albeit all too
often heated or otherwise polluted. In places where the source is an
underground aquifer the losses are huge, NOT because the water is consumed,
but because most of it is ejected into a convenient nearby lake, stream,
evaporation pond, or ditch. Finding ways of eliminating waste by the
careless and indifferent disposal of a mostly reusable (and valuable)
resource shouldn't present insurmountable or prohibitively expensive
engineering challenges.

What's important here is that the casual....or careless....reader can easily
be mislead into believing one thing, either unintentionally when certain
assumptions (perhaps taken for granted by specialists) are not clearly
spelled out, or deliberately if the ax to be ground requires certain special
secret lubricants, when the truth is something else entirely.

Incidentally, industrial scale fermentation, distillation, packaging and
distribution of ethanol will require the consumption of a good deal of
electricity, and the vast majority of the raw materials used for biofuel
production in the U.S. and Canada are grown in enormous open fields.....with
nothing to impede the sometimes ferocious winds which sweep across the great
plains of North America. Things that make you go "hm......." :)

Wolfgang

daytripper wrote in
:

It doesn't take much of a chemist to understand that a liter of
ethanol does not result from the conversion of 4 liters of water, let
alone 8. In fact, I don't know exactly how much water is actually
consumed in the process of fermentation but I'd bet a shiny new nickel
that it is less than 1 liter per liter of finished product.

Since I have one going up in my backyard, I've read its draft Environmental
Impact Statement. I have no idea how much water the reaction requires, but
the statement says that the facility will be drawing 800 gallons per minute
maximum. Most of that is eventually returned somehow, apparently.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Apr 20, 9:29 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"Tim Lysyk" wrote in message

news:bXTVh.9156$VF5.1555@edtnps82...

Recently, we had a thread about ethanol and its environmental effects.
There was a study recently commissioned in Alberta to look at biofuels.
This included the environmental impact of ethanol use and production. The
executive summary is athttp://www.aia.ab.ca/policy/and the full text is
at

http://www.aia.ab.ca/policy/thebiofuelsfrenzy.pdf

in case there is still some interest.

Lots of interest here.

The picture painted at the above links appears rather bleak. But then, the
prospects for continued reliance on a diminishing supply of fossils fuels is
even more so.

There is, of course, much too much information in that report to do justice
to in a discussion here.......particularly given the inevitable fate of such
discussions. But there is one thing I'd like to touch on because I think it
typifies a fundamental problem with ALL such discussions (and has already
been mentioned here).

At the end of issue # 10, I find the following statement: "...production of
one litre of ethanol requires between 4 and 8 litres of water. Most of this
water must come from underground sources and this could reduce water tables
in the aquifer."

It doesn't take much of a chemist to understand that a liter of ethanol does
not result from the conversion of 4 liters of water, let alone 8. In fact,
I don't know exactly how much water is actually consumed in the process of
fermentation but I'd bet a shiny new nickel that it is less than 1 liter per
liter of finished product. Much of the rest of the 4-8 liters is
essentially the vehicle for a culture medium which remains at the end of the
fermentation. Allowing some loss for sloppy distillation and cooling
practices, MOST of the 4-8 liters SHOULD still remain at the end of the
entire process as useable water. In places where sufficient bodies of
surface water in the form of streams or lakes are available, the bulk of
that water is (typically) eventually returned to the source, albeit all too
often heated or otherwise polluted. In places where the source is an
underground aquifer the losses are huge, NOT because the water is consumed,
but because most of it is ejected into a convenient nearby lake, stream,
evaporation pond, or ditch. Finding ways of eliminating waste by the
careless and indifferent disposal of a mostly reusable (and valuable)
resource shouldn't present insurmountable or prohibitively expensive
engineering challenges.

What's important here is that the casual....or careless....reader can easily
be mislead into believing one thing, either unintentionally when certain
assumptions (perhaps taken for granted by specialists) are not clearly
spelled out, or deliberately if the ax to be ground requires certain special
secret lubricants, when the truth is something else entirely.

Incidentally, industrial scale fermentation, distillation, packaging and
distribution of ethanol will require the consumption of a good deal of
electricity, and the vast majority of the raw materials used for biofuel
production in the U.S. and Canada are grown in enormous open fields.....with
nothing to impede the sometimes ferocious winds which sweep across the great
plains of North America. Things that make you go "hm......." :)

Wolfgang

"MOST of the 4-8 liters SHOULD still remain at the end of the
entire process as useable water"
It is and easily cleaned. The filtering process used to recover the
mash get rid of most of the solids. The water that goes through the
final filtering can filtered very efficinetly. The ethanol is remove
with a vacuume process and mole seives.
In parts of Mexifornia they use "Gray water" to irrigate non eatable
crops but mostly for the landscaping along the freeways. The "Beer"
after the removal and the mash would be very clean and suitable for
irrigating most crops. If not cleaned to well it might have some
fertilizer value, and if used to irrigate broccoli or the like could
improve it.
The plants don't use any sigificant amount of power. I have a set of
construction drawings and P&IDs if you want to build one. I'll sell
them cheap, you pay for copying them.
Federal law calls for all ethanol shipped from fuel plants to have an
8% gasoline content.

"daytripper" wrote in message
...

Is it possible the quoted water requirements include growing the raw
grain?

Excellent point. Seems plausible to me, but I think the wording (in issue
#9, incidentally, not #10 as I erroneously quoted) suggests otherwise.

/daytripper (that's how I read it, but I could be wrong...)

Precisely my point. There's no way to know for sure from the information
presented. Given that expert testimony is all too often of dubious worth in
the face of diametrically opposed expert testimony, it would doubtless be
helpful if it some of it was at least comprehensible to competent readers.
At the VERY least, it wouldn't hurt if information was presented in such a
way that competent readers could determine whether or not it IS
comprehensible. :)

Wolfgang

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:29:13 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote:

"Tim Lysyk" wrote in message
news:bXTVh.9156$VF5.1555@edtnps82...
Recently, we had a thread about ethanol and its environmental effects.
There was a study recently commissioned in Alberta to look at biofuels.
This included the environmental impact of ethanol use and production. The
executive summary is at http://www.aia.ab.ca/policy/ and the full text is
at

http://www.aia.ab.ca/policy/thebiofuelsfrenzy.pdf

in case there is still some interest.

Lots of interest here.

The picture painted at the above links appears rather bleak. But then, the
prospects for continued reliance on a diminishing supply of fossils fuels is
even more so.

There is, of course, much too much information in that report to do justice
to in a discussion here.......particularly given the inevitable fate of such
discussions. But there is one thing I'd like to touch on because I think it
typifies a fundamental problem with ALL such discussions (and has already
been mentioned here).

At the end of issue # 10, I find the following statement: "...production of
one litre of ethanol requires between 4 and 8 litres of water. Most of this
water must come from underground sources and this could reduce water tables
in the aquifer."

It doesn't take much of a chemist to understand that a liter of ethanol does
not result from the conversion of 4 liters of water, let alone 8. In fact,
I don't know exactly how much water is actually consumed in the process of
fermentation but I'd bet a shiny new nickel that it is less than 1 liter per
liter of finished product. Much of the rest of the 4-8 liters is
essentially the vehicle for a culture medium which remains at the end of the
fermentation. Allowing some loss for sloppy distillation and cooling
practices, MOST of the 4-8 liters SHOULD still remain at the end of the
entire process as useable water. In places where sufficient bodies of
surface water in the form of streams or lakes are available, the bulk of
that water is (typically) eventually returned to the source, albeit all too
often heated or otherwise polluted. In places where the source is an
underground aquifer the losses are huge, NOT because the water is consumed,
but because most of it is ejected into a convenient nearby lake, stream,
evaporation pond, or ditch. Finding ways of eliminating waste by the
careless and indifferent disposal of a mostly reusable (and valuable)
resource shouldn't present insurmountable or prohibitively expensive
engineering challenges.

What's important here is that the casual....or careless....reader can easily
be mislead into believing one thing, either unintentionally when certain
assumptions (perhaps taken for granted by specialists) are not clearly
spelled out, or deliberately if the ax to be ground requires certain special
secret lubricants, when the truth is something else entirely.

Incidentally, industrial scale fermentation, distillation, packaging and
distribution of ethanol will require the consumption of a good deal of
electricity, and the vast majority of the raw materials used for biofuel
production in the U.S. and Canada are grown in enormous open fields.....with
nothing to impede the sometimes ferocious winds which sweep across the great
plains of North America. Things that make you go "hm......." :)

Wolfgang

Is it possible the quoted water requirements include growing the raw grain?

/daytripper (that's how I read it, but I could be wrong...)

On Apr 19, 7:37 pm, Tim Lysyk wrote:
Recently, we had a thread about ethanol and its environmental effects.
There was a study recently commissioned in Alberta to look at biofuels.
This included the environmental impact of ethanol use and production.
The executive summary is athttp://www.aia.ab.ca/policy/and the full
text is at

http://www.aia.ab.ca/policy/thebiofuelsfrenzy.pdf

in case there is still some interest.

I know it isn't ethanol, but in a related subject:
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=33361

Thermal Depolymerization (TPD) is not just for the "fat" as this
article states. It actually takes any carbon-based feedstock, so any
biproduct coming from the processing plant, including the water to
hose it down every day (they can use it in the system as the vector
for the ground up feedstock). One of the better uses I've seen is
making diesel out of raw sewage.
Does it still pollute? Yes, but a bit less polluting (no sulfur) than
diesel made from crude. Right now, about 7% of the energy from the
feedstock goes to run the plant, after that its all gravy. Black
gravy.
Frank Reid

On Apr 20, 11:07 am, Flytyer37 wrote:
On Apr 19, 7:37 pm, Tim Lysyk wrote:

Recently, we had a thread about ethanol and its environmental effects.
There was a study recently commissioned in Alberta to look at biofuels.
This included the environmental impact of ethanol use and production.
The executive summary is athttp://www.aia.ab.ca/policy/andthe full
text is at

http://www.aia.ab.ca/policy/thebiofuelsfrenzy.pdf

in case there is still some interest.

I know it isn't ethanol, but in a related subject:http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=33361

Thermal Depolymerization (TPD) is not just for the "fat" as this
article states. It actually takes any carbon-based feedstock, so any
biproduct coming from the processing plant, including the water to
hose it down every day (they can use it in the system as the vector
for the ground up feedstock). One of the better uses I've seen is
making diesel out of raw sewage.
Does it still pollute? Yes, but a bit less polluting (no sulfur) than
diesel made from crude. Right now, about 7% of the energy from the
feedstock goes to run the plant, after that its all gravy. Black
gravy.
Frank Reid

There's a plant in Missouri thats allready working. It turns turkey
parts into oil.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil
Maby Ben Franklin was right. If the turkey saves us from dependance on
foreign oil maby it should be our national bird.
If you can use turkeys you can use stray dogs, carp, people. ....

If you can use turkeys you can use stray dogs, carp, people. ....- Hide quoted text -

Remember, some folks are like slinkies. Not good for much but they
sure put a smile on your face when you push them down the stairs. -
anon
Frank Reid

On Apr 20, 11:56 am, Flytyer37 wrote:
If you can use turkeys you can use stray dogs, carp, people. ....- Hide quoted text -

Remember, some folks are like slinkies. Not good for much but they
sure put a smile on your face when you push them down the stairs. -
anon
Frank Reid

Just trying to get an ideal out ahead of Cheney.
For some reason turkeys got to be first. Probably because so many are
processed in one place and there is no other way to get rid of the
stuff. No matter how modern and well maintained that plant ( the
turkey processing one) is, it's gotta smell bad enough to puke a
buzzard off a gut wagon.

On Apr 20, 2:39 pm, BJ Conner wrote:
On Apr 20, 11:56 am, Flytyer37 wrote:

If you can use turkeys you can use stray dogs, carp, people. ....- Hide quoted text -

Remember, some folks are like slinkies. Not good for much but they
sure put a smile on your face when you push them down the stairs. -
anon
Frank Reid

Just trying to get an ideal out ahead of Cheney.
For some reason turkeys got to be first. Probably because so many are
processed in one place and there is no other way to get rid of the
stuff. No matter how modern and well maintained that plant ( the
turkey processing one) is, it's gotta smell bad enough to puke a
buzzard off a gut wagon.

Actually, they've gotten the smell taken care of. I grew up working
on a turkey ranch. The rendering wagon would sit in the 100 degree
heat of the parking lot. Buzzards would actually faint at the smell.
Frank Reid

Yet another take on the expanded use of ethanol...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NG7EPAN601.DTL

/daytripper (I foresee wind-up vehicles in the future ;-)