Toadfish Monastery

Aggie was talking in another thread and I thought this subject deserved it's own.

Here's what he said:

"I am reading far too many depressing books lately - also recommended to avoid are "When Smoke Ran Like Water" and "The Secret History of the War on Cancer" both by Devra Davis (very good - am only halfway through either).  This morning I learned that the main reason public transit is so terrible in the US (as we were discussing elsewhere) is that the decent, well-utilized electric transit systems in the 20's were actively bought out and dismantled by the automobile and oil industries because they were a threat to the respective businesses - it was so blatant that the government (can't recall which branch offhand & am paraphrasing a bit here) actually took about 10 companies to court for conspiracy to monopolize transit and won - they were fined $5000.  Tongue  Oh, and that tetraethyl lead (leaded gas) was invented because it was cheap to produce, did not displace gasoline and patentable - as opposed to ethanol, which was know to work very well as an anti-knock agent instead but would need to displace 10% of the gasoline used by volume (loss of sales), and wasn't patentable (loss of monopoly).  They knew this stuff was toxic in the 20's (although evidence for how polluting it was came later) and it was opposed by many state health departments *cue public relations campaign*."

This is really hitting home because a very good friend of ours is leaving his high-paying job to work on Ethanol and other alternate fuels. He has asked my husband to join to help staff his office, which he hopes to open this summer. We are very excited and hopeful that he will succeed because it sounds like good work for a good cause.

What's upsetting to me is hearing people badmouthing Ethanol all the time on the news and in conversation. I feel highly suspicious that these arguements against it are paranoid propaganda by the oil companies. I keep hearing that the high prices on our groceries (and they've doubled around here in the past year- huje ouch) are because of corn being used for ethanol instead of food. To me this seems ridiculous. First- the corn that's used in Ethanol is not fit for human consumption. Yes, it may be the kind used for feeding beef cattle, but that's a pretty wasteful industry and Americans eat way too much red meat, anyway. Secondly- ethanol does not need to be made from corn. In Brazil they make it from sugarcane and I hear they've almost done away with foreign fossil fuels completely down there! Ethanol can be made from any plant product- the efficiency comes from how much sugar the plant produces. They're looking into making it from algae and saw grass. So I wish people'd get it right.

I think the oil companies are spreading a bunch of garbage because they're afraid we'll stop paying out the nose for their dirty, unhealthy fuels and wise up. If they were smart they'd invest in something better for the environment, biut they must be too set in their ways.

I hear people saying that it would be too big a change, but that's silly. We adjusted to light bulbs from candles and cars from carriages and CDs from LPs and cell phones from land lines. We can certainly adjust to  renewable fuels from the old ways that only became less available and more expensive.

It's time to change.

Quote from: Opsanus tau...
What's upsetting to me is hearing people badmouthing Ethanol all the time on the news and in conversation. I feel highly suspicious that these arguements against it are paranoid propaganda by the oil companies. I keep hearing that the high prices on our groceries (and they've doubled around here in the past year- huje ouch) are because of corn being used for ethanol instead of food.
...

Hear, hear!

I've been watching 5 minutes of FOX news every night (building up my tolerance before total immersion at Club Neb). Recently one of the frothing heads was claiming that it costs some outrageous amount of fossil fuel to process ethanol -- something like a 4:1 (?) ratio, which seemed highly suspect to me. They coupled it with the usual diatribe about stoopid, ee-leet, librul Amurkins hatefully trying to starve the Greatest Nation on Earth in order to create a criminally wasteful (and, they confided) completely inefficient fuel source.

Officially, I don't believe in hell. Secretly, I hope something like it exists for these people.

Your friend's business venture sounds like a responsible endeavor. Please post updates on it.

There's quite a good article here (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10250420), though The Economist may be a tad right of the centre of gravity here.

As I understand it there are some production issues (Ethanol production consumes lots of water for one thing). I think Bio-fuels don't have powerful advocates other than governments looking for fuel supply security. Oil companies aren't keen for obvious reasons, and environmentalists aren't keen because they still power cars. Also critics can use emotive arguments about how many people can be fed by the crops used to fill one SUV tank.

IMHO - some of the biofuel-blame for the increase in food prices is legitimate, but it's more a case of diverting food-crop land to biofuel-feedstock lands.  I think factory farming may be equally if not more to blame for the sudden spike lately - both of these factors could apply to wheat and oilseeds. 

Indications are that the actual cost of production for many of the staples, especially rice, is directly tied to the price of oil - petroleum is vital for running the equipment, producing the fertilizer and transporting the final product. 

The current production of ethanol (again, IMHO) is not a threat to Big Oil in the immediate future as it's a very energy-intensive process and takes plenty of oil to crank out the final product.  And it's also terribly inefficient in terms of converting biomass to energy - using grain crops such as corn to make ethanol utilizes only a small portion of the biomass.  With sugar cane, the entire stalk of the plant can be squeezed for sugar, so there's increased efficiency. 

Where we will (eventually) see commercially and ecologically viable ethanol production is through cellulosic ethanol - but first we need to develop some high-power enzymes to crack what is a very stable molecule, or some strains of bacteria/fungi to do it for us.  They exist, but they are just starting to work on more than a bench scale - but with advances in biotech we should be close and this will be BIG.

Also, I've been wondering - it's tough to grow sugarcane in most parts of North America, but what about sugar beets?  Might be a great feedstock.

I do like the idea of algae-based biofuel (you can make biodiesel out of it) as a method of carbon capture from power plants & other big emissions generators.  It's actually one of the big limitations for algae farming - where to get enough CO2 to maximize algae growth?  So putting algae growth tanks next to a coal-burning monster or at an oil refinery would allow us to recapture fossil carbon for one more go-around, and the exhaust heat could make this viable even in cold but sunny locations - particularly in the case of a refinery, oilsands plant etc, it would be relatively simple to have all production occur on-site, and use existing shipping processes to move the final product (you can send different batches of different substances through pipelines, or lay another, smaller line on existing right-of-ways to minimize the footprint).


Ironically, our best bet for green energy may be the oil companies, provided it's commercially viable.  The Rockefellers are pushing Exxon-Mobil (XOM) to go green for business's sake:
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN30446274

XOM is also working on batteries for hybrid cars:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5334375.html?amp;cid=1124217133&ei=mFFOR6OXGqSioAOTjcyGBQ

and is constructing a big battery plant in South Korea right now (can't find article).

I'm not backing Big Oil here, but while brewing biodiesel in your backyard lets you do your part, it's going to (regrettably & IMO realistically) take systemic change to make a global difference.  In some ways, the ridiculous oil prices we are seeing may get us there faster by making alternative energy affordable by comparison - there is little motivation to wean off of petroleum at $30/barrel.  The downside is that it's also making marginal oil (oilsands etc.) worth spending energy to recover.

Quote from: beagle on May 01, 2008, 08:54:15 PM
I think Bio-fuels don't have powerful advocates other than governments looking for fuel supply security.

I am highly suspicious of Big Corn in the US - probably they (farmers) deserve a good turn but they are making off like thieves with the current situation.

Good point. The tax on Brazilian ethanol The Economist talks about does make the subsidies look more like politicking than environmentalism.

I think the only justifiable mode of bio-fuel production is one that does not directly or indirectly cuts into food supplies.
Planting oilplants instead of foodcrops: bad
Cutting rainforest to plant oilplants in order to not use land used for foodcrops: bad
using foodcrops to produce oil instead of food: apage Satana!
Using biomass that is not used otherwise for oil production: looks good (at least on first sight)

A general problem is the energy input: industrialized agriculture needs lots of energy (e.g. gas for the machines, fertilizer production. production of other agrochemicals). Converting biomass to fuel also uses up part of the stored energy.
I have read about a poisonous African oilplant that grows in places where no normal crop grows and has an extreme oil content (much higher than e.g. rape) and can be processed locally. If used the right way that could be a real alternative but the usual suspects are already trying to run it the way they do with other resources (i.e. nothing for the locals but bullets).

Quote from: Swatopluk on May 01, 2008, 09:28:48 PM
I have read about a poisonous African oilplant that grows in places where no normal crop grows and has an extreme oil content (much higher than e.g. rape) and can be processed locally. If used the right way that could be a real alternative but the usual suspects are already trying to run it the way they do with other resources (i.e. nothing for the locals but bullets).

I demand a species name!   Just kidding... but I'd be interested in knowing more.

I am personally getting interested in charcoal production with wood gas as a byproduct (fed to either a generator or furnace or both, and perhaps further gas production from the charcoal) - but chalk this up under "brewing biodiesel in your backyard" rather than a systemic good idea (I also plan to switch to legal bushmeat in the future, but that's again not sustainable for the general population). 

The problem is that the article I got that from was in a printed newspaper. I kept the part but I keep so much else from it that it would take a significant amount of time to find it. I may try.

Edit:
OK, here is a link to a mirror of that article (German)
http://www.wfp.org/german/?NodeID=43&k=293

The plants name seems to be jatropha

This stuff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha

Looks like it (checked it immediately after my last post*). Seems also to contain links to relevant topics.


*which I herewith claim :mrgreen:

"2005 Western Australia banned the plant as invasive and highly toxic to people and animals."

We may have to drive all day and night to keep it from taking over...

Quote from: OpsaYes, it may be the kind used for feeding beef cattle, but that's a pretty wasteful industry and Americans eat way too much red meat, anyway.

As others have said, I think, I've always understood it's more an issue of diversion of land use for food growth in African countries where people are starving.

Paddy Ashdown (ex leader of the Liberal Democrats here) just made a superb speech on Question Time (which got the biggest cheer from the audience I've ever heard for any politician on any programme). Essentially the question was between poilicies of Labour and Conservative, as ever, and he said, paraphrase, the differences were irrelevant and what was needed was a complete change to governments focusing on global issues such as fuel and food. Of course, it is easy for ex-leaders to say such things and even easier for ex-leaders of parties that never get elected. But his argument was coherent, totally persuasive and beautifully choreographed and the reaction of the audience was in itself quite startling - they are a Very Mixed Audience, carefully picked to have very different political views.

Opsa, tell 'em don't forget about kudzu as a biofuel source.

There's certainly enough of it.

Quote from: Griffin NoName on May 02, 2008, 12:42:36 AM
... what was needed was a complete change to governments focusing on global issues such as fuel and food.

Bring back the  groundnut scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanganyika_groundnut_scheme) ;)

Cellulosic ethanol will be the key to economical biofuel.

Because, basically any plant material can be converted with that system.  Sawgrass is a prime choice for this-- it's considered a "weed" around most places.

However, it will grow in places foodcrops won't touch; arid, rocky, grassland, etc.   I can be harvested 3-4 times a year, and no need to re-seed-- you cut it like hay or straw.  It's naturally pest resistant, and naturally forces out competitive plants, once established.   In fact, there are many waste-areas here in Oklahoma that currently grow nothing, but were once farmed to oblivion (dust-bowl days, long gone).  Sawgrass planted in these field would help re-establish it as grassland, could be harvested without harming that role.  Win-win.

To make it economical, there HAS to be efficient bio-conversion.  No heat, no expensive chemicals.  Must be bacteria or similar, else you'll put more energy via fossil fuels into the conversion that what you get out-- net carbon-to-atmosphere gain.

If, however, you use bacterial fermentation process, the net carbon-to-atmosphere is zero:  the plant takes in CO2 to build cellulose using solar energy.   A loss of atmospheric carbon.  Then, the material is fermented into ethanol-- releasing some carbon into the atmosphere in the process, but less than the plant took in.  Finally the ethanol is burned, releasing the rest.  Net: zero addition to the atmosphere of CO2.   Total environmental impact, low.   Sawgrass requires little maintenance or water, or so I'm told. Once established.  Although to get 3-4 crops a year, you'd likely need regular rainfall, or have to use irrigation, which could stress existing fresh water supplies.

It all hinges on finding a single-step cellulose-to-ethanol process.  Currently, it takes more than one step to get there-- too costly, too much energy required. 

There are some promising bacterias, though.  Cow's stomachs.  Think of the fermentation that goes on in there.  ::) :P

Which brings us back to the old idea of putting a gas collector into the cow anus :mrgreen:

Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on May 02, 2008, 07:53:48 AMIf, however, you use bacterial fermentation process, the net carbon-to-atmosphere is zero:  the plant takes in CO2 to build cellulose using solar energy.   A loss of atmospheric carbon.  Then, the material is fermented into ethanol-- releasing some carbon into the atmosphere in the process, but less than the plant took in.  Finally the ethanol is burned, releasing the rest.  Net: zero addition to the atmosphere of CO2.   Total environmental impact, low.   Sawgrass requires little maintenance or water, or so I'm told. Once established.  Although to get 3-4 crops a year, you'd likely need regular rainfall, or have to use irrigation, which could stress existing fresh water supplies.

It all hinges on finding a single-step cellulose-to-ethanol process.  Currently, it takes more than one step to get there-- too costly, too much energy required. 

There are some promising bacterias, though.  Cow's stomachs.  Think of the fermentation that goes on in there.  ::) :P

There's one issue I can't see how to get around with ethanol production, and that's distillation.  It's always going to need to be distilled out, unless we can easily produce an enzyme that will work in a pure ethanol environment - bacterial certainly won't.

Of course, alcohol-fueled burners have been used on a smaller scale for years and there's no reason one could not simply consume some of the product to heat the distillation - and there's likely going to be leftover biosolids that could be ran through an anaerobic digester to produce biogas.

the whole topic reminds me of

"who run barter town?"
"master blaster, run barter town"
"louder"
"MASTER BLASTER RUNS BARTER TOWN"
"lift embargo"

KUDZU!!!!! run the world, yep lots of Kudzu

Busy bees, all of you (how is that I just see this topic? Some delay on the unread posts feature?)
---
I've read quite a bit on the subject (Scientific American, The Economist) and is clear that until an economical cellulose process is industrially viable corn should be out of the picture.

But the most interesting article I read recently was on Time Magazine : the clean energy scam (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html). It makes the link between mandates on the use of biofuel, rising cost of food and the destruction of the amazon forest.

When the amount of fuel required to (even partially) replace oil is as big as it is, the use of crops will necessarily displace food crops, specially those whose price is low or have a very small profit margin.

I'm all for biofuels, provided that they give more energy than it takes to make them, and provided that filling my tank is not killing people of hunger somewhere else in the world.

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on May 02, 2008, 03:19:41 PM

I'm all for biofuels, provided that they give more energy than it takes to make them, and provided that filling my tank is not killing people of hunger somewhere else in the world.

This is my view too.
And I do feel worried about the reports about people in 3 world countries starving because of the fields are used to grow biofuel for consumers in 1 world countries.
Mind you we don't have an election coming up here any time soon, or any thing else that politically would trigger an anti biofuel campaign.

Personally I think bio-diesel seems much more interesting than ethanol, because we can grow rape, flax and other oily plants here too, on fields that is no longer needed for wheat or oath. Also think of all the, used frying oil from restaurant kitchens and the fat from the fat traps in the sinks! :o
How about installing a fat trap in every household sink and encourage people to recycle their excess/disposed cooking fat/oil?
I'll do that in a heartbeat. Less clogged pipes, more presumptive biofuel.     

I herewith claim the invention of the liposuction car!
I call it the Limbaughmile  :mrgreen:

Haven't we proposed that before? (as far back as TOP, I think)

How about running a biodiesel refinery out of a crematorium basement?  Hey, it's getting burned anyway...

Or make commemorative soap figures... :devil2:

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)
Or make commemorative soap figures... :devil2:

I grew up with the clear understanding that 'guest soaps' (and towels) were absolutely off limits. This aversion indoctrination was so strong that my friends and I giggle that we don't touch them even when we *are* guests!

'Guest soaps' made out of dear old whoever....  there's a vast, untapped marketing niche in that, I fear.

We talked some more with the guy that's creating the alternative fuels company and he's doing all kinds of resourceful things.  He'll be starting out by making bio-diesel from used vegetable oil from restaurants to power equipment used to manufacture ethanols. It's pretty exciting.

A pity wind traps can't be modified to tap into the vast amount of hot air expended every day on talk radio and Faux News...

"How's the Taurus running since the retrofit, Pieces?"
"Fantastic! I can run all my errands on just one hour of Hannity, and visit out-of-town friends on one tank of the O'Reilly Factor."

The rightwinger car aka the Mo-bile

That reminds me: If you are adult and speak German you may google "Frau Wirtin hat auch ein Mobil" :o

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on May 02, 2008, 03:19:41 PM
Busy bees, all of you (how is that I just see this topic? Some delay on the unread posts feature?)

It seems seriously screwed up.

Some days it works-- other days, I must manually scan the various threads for (new).

*bleah*

Quote from: Opsanus tau on May 05, 2008, 05:30:57 PM
We talked some more with the guy that's creating the alternative fuels company and he's doing all kinds of resourceful things.  He'll be starting out by making bio-diesel from used vegetable oil from restaurants to power equipment used to manufacture ethanols. It's pretty exciting.

This is exciting - and is exactly what is neglected in most alternative energy schemes.  You gots to input alternative energy to really count your output - so many of the alternatives are manufactured / processed / fueled by petroleum (wind turbines are a good example - built in fossil-fuel powered factories, put up with diesel equipment).

Quote from: Agujjim on May 06, 2008, 04:46:14 AM

Quote from: Opsanus tau on May 05, 2008, 05:30:57 PM
We talked some more with the guy that's creating the alternative fuels company and he's doing all kinds of resourceful things.  He'll be starting out by making bio-diesel from used vegetable oil from restaurants to power equipment used to manufacture ethanols. It's pretty exciting.

This is exciting - and is exactly what is neglected in most alternative energy schemes.  You gots to input alternative energy to really count your output - so many of the alternatives are manufactured / processed / fueled by petroleum (wind turbines are a good example - built in fossil-fuel powered factories, put up with diesel equipment).

One of the most interesting factories I ever read about, was sugar-cane processing.

Sugar cane is much like bamboo, except with sweet liquid inside.  These canes are harvested, and crushed to release the liquid, and the remaining cane is just so much waste.

Except, that reducing the liquid into granulated sugar requires quite a bit of heat.  What else?  Burn the cane-- it's almost pure cellulose anyway, and burns quite nicely, if left to dry just a bit.

So, most production plants utilize the leftover canes to heat their processes-- many also fire turbines to generate electrical power, too.  Some sell the excess to the surrounding communities....

Neat, that.

I'd love for us to do the sugar cane thing, but it is a tropical plant and wouldn't grow north of Tennessee. Still, I can't help but think that some of those bellyaching tobacco growers should give sugar cane a try. Might make them rich.

The way things are going it will grow up in Canada soon... ::)

Still wonderin' about sugar beets for ethanol.

Quote from: Agujjim on May 06, 2008, 07:14:50 PM
Still wonderin' about sugar beets for ethanol.

Anything with sugar in it, can be fermented.  Just ask the Russian's.  ;D

Of course, to make a fuel suitable for burning, you must distill it, and that takes heat.

From whence the heat comes, is the real sticky-wicket.

I don't think that leftover pulp from crushed sugarbeets would provided enough, though.

So the heat must come from somewhere else.  The usual "solution" is fossil fuel.... kinda defeats the whole point, yes?

I can visualize a solar still, but you'd need a really low-cloud place, like Arizona or West Texas.   I don't imagine the sugar beets would grow there.   So, you'd have to ship them.  By truck or by rail, and you'd be using..... fossil fuel again.

I just found this article, which also mentions sorghum. Hadn't heard that one before.

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meCh2.html

Downriver (and that would be the case in the US) the transport would not use up that much fuel (sail, drift etc. for most of the time, motor only for close maneuvering).

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/23/first-sugar-beet-ethanol-plant-opens-in-the-uk/

Apparently someone thinks beets'll work....  but I do agree on the distillation issues.

Then again, we have lots of sugar beets and wind turbines in the same neck of the woods here, could use electric distillation units I suppose.

How high temperature is required for distillation? Solar thermal to replace water heaters works quite well above 50C even in cloudy places.

Between 78 and 100 C for ethanol/water solutions.  Not sure what the other components of the mixture (fermentation leftovers and byproducts) would do to it, though.

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on May 07, 2008, 12:49:17 AM
How high temperature is required for distillation? Solar thermal to replace water heaters works quite well above 50C even in cloudy places.

Quote from: Agujjim on May 07, 2008, 01:50:06 AM
Between 78 and 100 C for ethanol/water solutions.  Not sure what the other components of the mixture (fermentation leftovers and byproducts) would do to it, though.

Depends on how much water you want to extract.

The initial solution is roughly 12% or so, the max concentration you get to before the yeast is poisoned by it's own processes.  But, that solution is not just water/ethanol.  It also usually contains still more starch/sugars that could be processed, if the alcohol were removed.

So, heat it enough to "boil" off the alcohol, but not the water.  Capture the vapors in a distillation apparatus.  The heat from that (the distillation thingy) could be used to warm the fermentation vats, as a bit of heat above ambient will speed things up there, but it's not strictly needed.   Or, the distillation heat could be sent to pre-heat the incoming liquid, before it actually gets to the boiler.  Why dump it into the atmosphere?

Anyway, if you want to get all the alcohol, you'll need heat up to just shy of 100C/212F.  You need to closely monitor the amount of heat you put in, and the temperature of the liquid.  It will have a couple of plateaus as the alcohol is driven off.  When you pass the last one, it should stabilize just at or below 100C for a time-- the latent heat of vaporization of the water will be starting, then.  You stop there, as you've removed nearly all the alcohol.  Send the liquid back to the fermentation vats, after cooling.  Use it's hot temperatures to help pre-heat incoming liquid.  Again.   

If you do elect to recycle the liquid back to the fermentation vat, you'll need to monitor it's sugar content, too.  If the liquid, after evaporation of alcohol, contains little or no starch/sugar, it may be discarded.  It ought to contain little, by this time.  Just trace minerals and chemicals leftover from the plant material that did not ferment, or boil off.  If cooled, it should be safe enough to use for plant watering.

Back to the vaporized alcohol.  It won't be 90% after the first distillation-- quite a bit of water will vaporize, too, even though the temperatures are well below boiling.

So, you'll need to re-distill it a second time.  This time, it becomes tricky.   It's now concentrated enough to sustain a fire, but not enough to be useful as a fuel.  So, heating it must be done in completely enclosed containers.   And the temps must be monitored even more carefully than with the initial run.   Watching for plateaus, again-- only these will be more subtle, not as sharp or distinct. 

.............

Obviously, the above is for a max-fuel output.  If the operator is willing to drop the efficiency, and just vent or waste part of the yield,  a single distillation cycle is enough.  You stop collecting the vapors after the first temperature plateau, to reduce the percentage of water vapor.  But, you must continue to heat it (voiding the vapors) to drive off the excess alcohol, if you wish to re-introduce the liquid for more fermentation.

Again, if you want to drop even more efficiency, you could just discard the liquid, or use it as plant fertilizer or hog-feed.

It would all depend on the quantity and quality of your final product, of course.

A very small operator, say a single small farm, might elect to just extract the minimums-- pretty simple to do, and the cost benifits of ignoring the waste is offset by the tiny overall yields anyway.

But, if you are processing 1,000's of gallons monthly?  You really would have to look at a more involved processor.

........

I see no reason why a solar collector for heat could not work-- unless the system is setup in a mostly-cloudy area (like Seattle, WA).  You really need 3 of 4 days of the year sunny or more, to make solar only viable.

.......

If the plant were large enough, there's absolutely no reason why they couldn't just utilize their own product to produce the required heat, though.

.......

If the plant were a single farm?  I'd suggest adding a manure processor, to produce methane gas.  Utilize the methane to heat your fermentation and distillerys.  What small farm doesn't have more than enough manure....! ::) 

Unscientific reply:  there's a sugar beet processing plant in the townlet where I spent part of my childhood. It's on the route to visit mom, and in passing through there now one runs the risk of passing out...

Please return to your scientific discussion.

And if you can plan for the bacteria that thrive in the waste water, that would be cool, too...

Distillation for alcohol is an old hat. Membrane separation is the thing to do (and effectively needs far less energy because the soup has not to be boiled*)

*thermodynamically it needs of course the same amount but the heat loss is far greater for the distillation process.

Quote from: Swatopluk on May 07, 2008, 12:45:12 PM
Distillation for alcohol is an old hat. Membrane separation is the thing to do (and effectively needs far less energy because the soup has not to be boiled*)

*thermodynamically it needs of course the same amount but the heat loss is far greater for the distillation process.

I didn't realize they had a membrane that could separate water and alcohol.  Neat trick, if true.

Swato would know, I think.  ;)



Is pressurization necessary for separation?  Do you think the current membranes are selective and efficient enough to do continuous separation (i.e. have part of the fermentation mixture diverted for separation on a continuous basis and then returned, to prevent alcohol poisoning of the fermenting organisms)?

To my knowledge the membranes are used by now as the almost exclusive means to produce absolute alcohol. Normal distillation can only achieve about 98% due to the formation of an azeotrope. See pervaporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervaporation). Whether it works well/economically on mixtures with more than about 5% of the component to be extracted, I don't know.

The ability to work on lower concentrations (of ethanol) may be an advantage if it's to be a continuous process.

I was watching Myth Busters yesterday and they filtered used cooking oil and poured it directly in a diesel Mercedes (the didn't specified if the car had been converted). Reading further it seems a conversion is preferable due to the high viscosity of cooking oil or a conversion of the oil itself.

Here is a handy guide for those with diesel needs:

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on June 23, 2008, 06:09:04 PM
I was watching Myth Busters yesterday and they filtered used cooking oil and poured it directly in a diesel Mercedes (the didn't specified if the car had been converted). Reading further it seems a conversion is preferable due to the high viscosity of cooking oil or a conversion of the oil itself.

Here is a handy guide for those with diesel needs:

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html

Pure [filtered] veggy oil "diesels" quite nicely, without any modification to the engine itself.

The problem lies in two aspects:  pure veggie oil will mould or spoil pretty quickly, and pure veggie oil is too "thick" a viscosity for most diesel pumps to handle properly.

The cure for the former is to "denature" veggie oil with petroleum oil, say 5% or 10% or so.

The fix for the latter is a simple application of heat.  All the "conversions" to pure veggie oil involve some form of heater/heat applied to the fuel tank, to keep it at or near 150 degrees F-- (roughly 66C if I remember right).  This involves insulating the tank and the fuel lines.

Everyone who does a conversion also adds more fuel filters too, just in case-- and positions these for very easy on-the-road changeouts (and carries spares).  This is because even filtered veggie oil contains particulates that WILL clog the diesel injectors pretty quickly-- requiring a major engine overhaul.   So extra filtering is a must.

I read of one mobile home conversion guy that just wrapped his fuel tank in several inches of fiberglas insulation (yes, the kind you'd use in an attic) and then several layers of very stout aluminum foil.  Before he did that, though, he wrapped the tank in an ordinary electric blanket, like you might use on your bed.

Then, he plugs in the electric blanket to the mains at night, and the super-extra insulation keeps the hot oil hot enough to work-- he states he tries to keep the tank 1/2 full at a minimum, if possible.

But, pure unadulterated veggie oil works quite well.

Just stumbled on this
http://www.alternet.org/story/89127/
A new alternative fuel with positive side effects  :mrgreen:

Ah, Ehrenreich once again exposes her previously note fat phobia.

She needs to sharpen up her Swiftian moves... As satire, it's weak, as NOT satire, it just sad.

I *think* that article (or another very like it) was fuel for an opinion fire over at TOP, where several of the members could not resist rushing over with their own little gas cans to express horror and contempt at teh fat.

Personally, I would take great pleasure in surveying the most self-righteous and shrill among them in, say, 20 years, with a little check-in every decade thereafter...

I posted a little anecdote about a former coworker whom my mind had identified as 'fat' and then moved on to more important topics. A couple years later I ran into her again -- she looked great! Guess what? She revealed that she was no longer on mega-doses of a steroid to fight a serious health condition. Clearly not the case in most instances, but my point was that the delicate, oversensitive fat-phobes among them should not LEAP! to conclusions and harsh judgements if they do not know the facts about the situation. You will all be stunned -- STUNNED! -- to hear that my post was ignored.

:tumbleweed:

;)

I could do with 20 kg less. Part of it might come from medication but I think that's negligible compared to not enough exercise and the body making good use of what is going in (i.e. I am genetically well prepared for the coming famine it seems)

Pretty much my case except I'm not taking any medication.  :-[

Send it here!  But you must include some muscle with it also - I'm short on both.

CAN build muscle but I'm not looking forward to dieting to do so (5000 calories force-fed at 5 meals per day plus snacks plus drinks). 


It's not a new idea, nor is it particularly amusing or practical.  It's arguably more practical to strip fat from cadavers with a solvent such as acetone prior to cremation (would be voluntary, maybe one gets a discount?), which is still a bit offensive but does not carry the UGH FAT! connotations.

Skinny or chunky, you guys all have wonderful minds and are beautiful in every way and don't ever forget that!

Anyone who says otherwise is pitifully naive. Feel sorry for them. One day they WILL get old or ill and then what will they have to say about stupid notions about physical perfection?

YOU will ALWAYS be WONDERFUL.

To a great extent, body shape and 'styling' are genetic/inherited.

Tall chunky people will probably have tall chunky kids. You screw up their chance to get the "tall" part right in utero, you're gonna have a short, chunkier toss-off there.

Personal happenstance. Mom had a child, a miscarriage or maybe two and another child in 18 months. The body cannot physically support that. Add in neurofibromatosis-nobody knows WHY on neurofibromatosis--and you have a 5'5" tall person in a family of--Mom, at full height 5' 10", Dad 6', older sister 5'11" and in a growth spurt at the time of death, and brothers 6'5" (we think) and probably 6'8". NOBODY thin, everybody substantial to heavy. Now, take the ONE in there that never got any 'trunk' development (height) beyond the size of a nine-year old. Legs and arms go on forever, but, squatty body. And where, dear friends, does fat accumulate, especially on the female??

Now, you can starve it, you can try to change it with diets, you can operate on it, BUT your genetic inevitability is SET.

And guess what?? the ectomorphs NEVER win in the Life Lotto. The mesomorphs do a bit better, but for survival?? It's us chunks that make it. Go into "famine mode" and store energy?? You betcha!! We're built to do it.

Example: Holiday time, flower shop. Over 500 orders. Me, a woman 10 years younger, 2 young women in their 20's. Working around the clock. Some make it once around, two make it twice, then one, the 'fat old lady' makes it over 80 hours, no sleep, 2 meals, one "hose off in the back at night" shower. I was not swift, I was steady, and I just kept moving. Stored energy.

I can't RUN anywhere. I can amble my way along for miles, even with all the neuro and ortho problems.

It's all about the storage systems, for ANY kind of energy.

And if it can be stripped out post mortem, before cremation, GOOD. Dealing with my leftover bones is gonna be a big enough pain. (Another genetic abnormality. Dense bones. Will not break normally. They fracture vertically...)

Mankind is a fool to not utilize any energy source available, as long as the rights of people aren't infringed upon.

Problem is, there are those that will mandate the infringement of those rights. (Today's theme is: People Suck, I Wanna be a Kitteh.)

Yay! Chatty !!

I have been living on the basis that I have enough fat stored around my middle to keep me alive whenever I have bouts of not enough energy to eat (and certainly not enough energy to process what I might eat).

I've never had a waist and I don't expect to suddenly develop one ;)

No to Meals-on-Wheels !  That would certainly waste a lot of fuel. ;D

Precisely.

Meals on Wheels tends to middle of road dull food that's 'easy' on the oldsters, and has plenty of fibre.

Fibre is NOT indicated for an illness that has the highest incidence of chronic diahrreah of ANY illness, including Chron's. And that we're 'blessed' with an internal indicator that tells us (see above record) when food's been 'held' after prep (bake it today, hold it to serve tomorrow on those lovey chicken legs...), well...it's not lovely at all.

NOT to mention the fact that between allergies and severe dislikes, the M-O-W anonymous survey we did here in our little town (138 MOW recipients, although some are through the Senior's Center where they come to the center to eat) almost half of what MOW puts out gets trashed or fed to the cat/dog/neighbor kid/grandkid/other starving entity.

Add to that the stupid fact that the Senior Center folks cannot take their 'leftovers' home with them...any 'overage' in food must be thrown out, and there are hungry people a couple of blocks away...

Most large-group run MOW activities are based on forcing the inedible on the uninterested.

I'm dreading the day I quit growing and my dietary choices begin to affect me. (College? Maybe.) I've kept my same freakishly sticklike figure through every dietary variation and lifestyle variation I've gone through so far, down to every abnormality. (I have perfectly adult shoulders and the chest of an eight-year-old, and it's been that way since shortly after I hit puberty.) Maybe I ought to start doing physical things...

Quote from: Alpaca on June 30, 2008, 05:22:40 AM
I'm dreading the day I quit growing and my dietary choices begin to affect me. (College? Maybe.) I've kept my same freakishly sticklike figure through every dietary variation and lifestyle variation I've gone through so far, down to every abnormality. (I have perfectly adult shoulders and the chest of an eight-year-old, and it's been that way since shortly after I hit puberty.) Maybe I ought to start doing physical things...

Freshman 15!
Freshman 15!
(and don't laugh about it- I began college at age 31 and instantly put on about 12 extra pounds to my already obese self------)
I went hog wild with the fact that I could put money on my food card and go to the student union and buy all sorts of garbage to drink and eat (like coffee drinks  :mrgreen:) and not have to pay taxes because the money was left over from my scholarships and went on my dining credit (get more money than what it takes to pay tuition, fees and buy books?????   :coffeemug: :EasterBunnyEat: and other high fat/calorie items with it from the student union!)

I do not understand why some food has to be tossed-- like at senior centers-- my mom tells me this as well, no doggie bags. It must be a thing in the USA because many senior centers get 'gubment' money to buy that food so it has to be something about not giving away or 'trading' food comodities! (and she agrees that usually the food is awful-- but if one can get it down it does provide filler-and some of our seniors are so budget tight that they need the filler-- so if they could take it home then who knows they might be better nourished).

Oh sorry 
back on topic of alternative fuel
interesting idea about human fat retreval and use--- lots of ethical problems, but hey many choose to donate their other organs and while fat is not an organ it is a substance of use.
on the other hand-- what a gross idea--- shivers, envisions a sort of Soylent Green type thing going on and has read The Jungle many times!

But overall I do agree with the fact that we should utilize what we can as fuel--- like
HEMP!  (http://www.hemp4fuel.com/)   
seriously the stuff grows well under terrible conditions, low or high water areas, scrub land, will grow in shade(like plant it in the forest and not cut down all the trees first), is pest resistant, grows rapidly, does not need fertilizer, and so forth. It is only for smoking when it is allowed to mature and bud out--- if harvested prior to that it is completely free of any 'War on Drug' silliness at all.  One can also pick and cook the tiny new leaves as a vegetable as well! It is already grown many places for rope and twine-- we in the USA need to plow under our tobacco plantations (I understant that it is difficult to quit smoking folks-no disrespect for you all) and grow hemp!
naturally I think that it should be grown for smoking and legalized like other drugs we use--- of course until that day I don't use it as it is illegal--- but used by adults, in moderation it is no 'worse' than alcohol or tobacco. IMHumbleO.

Of course we have an obesity scare going on in the UK, with endless expenditure and government intervention to try to control what we eat. A human fat donation bank could provide a more useful approach and prevent the lorry drivers strikes. ;)

Anthro,

Hemp would be a blessing in a zillion different ways.
Energy. Oil, of course, plus a clean-up of the land where ya grow it. (Toxic remediation.)
Clothing!! You wanna know how well hemp clothing wears?? Ya know all that WWII issues that seems to have lasted forever?? Made with hemp fiber. The US bought what it could, and had a "secret" farm in Kansas where they grew hemp for uniforms. Wears better than cotton, is as comfortable as cotton/linen. Easy care.
The fibers are long and strong, and can be used to strengthen almost anything...

Of course, the Gubbmint can't be havin' that terrible stuff growin'!! somebody might distill downn the hallucinogenic bit from 45 tons of it and get semi-mellow for as much as 3 minutes!! (Just say NO, kiddies!! Especially to alkies like Nancy Reagan...)

Can't we hybridize the THC out of it or something, if the gubment's determined to have such a hissy fit over the handful of giggles it inspires?

Industrial hemp has very little THC, was banned in the US after the cotton and wood lobby felt threatened (back in the 30s), remains banned due to 'moral' reasons (it's association with marijuana), and quite likely will remain banned for the same stupid reasons.

Hemp is pretty cool, and back in the sailing-navy days, it was encouraged [by the government] EVERYWHERE---- to provide raw material for rope, obviously.

But, my favorite fuel-crop is Sawgrass.  It's basically a weed, and since it's grass, once planted, you "harvest" it by mowing not unlike collecting hay.  3-4 crops a year, in some areas.

But, it's cellulose, and to convert that to fuel, you need an extra step to break the cellulose into sugar.  Cows do this in their 4 stomachs using symbiotic bacteria.

Once the cellulose is broken into sugar, you make ethanol in the regular way with yeast and distillation.

I understand there's quite a bit of research going on for single-step cellulose-to-ethanol processing, and if that can be done, cellulosic  sources of biofuels become serious contenders against fossil oils.

There are any number of waste-cellulose resources in the nation-- from paper to trash to wood chips to... algae.

Which brings up yet another possible HUGE resource for biofuel:  algae 'farms' in vast areas of the ocean.  There are already polluted areas of the ocean that have HUGE algae blooms because of farm ferterlizer runoff issues.  The sea-bottom has been killed off from this.

Why not make "lemonade" while the algae is blooming?  Harvesting of the algae would remove the extra phosphors and nitrous chemicals (from the farm run-off) helping the area to return to a normal chemical balance.  Meantime, we have a nice source of cellulose-- we are talking possible TONS of cellulose per day, to remove in this way.

The down side is that we don't have a purpose-built method of getting the algae out of the water, but that ought to be simple enough-- the algae only grows in the top 12" or so of the water.  Look how the whales "harvest" this stuff: simple filters ought to work, something like a "reverse swamp cooler" ought to work:  filter media on a conveyor belt, hanging off the front of the ship.  As the ship moves slowly forward, the belt continues to filter the algae up out of the water, where it can be scraped/squeezed out of the media, and the process continues.   It could be sun-dried on board the ship, greatly reducing it's bulk.  Heck, if the ship is large enough, while it's still wet, start the processing on board.  What you'd deliver would be pure ethanol, as fuel.  The waste could be returned to the sea, as it is basically leftover algae parts... completely biodegradable.

*sigh*

I don't see this happening any time soon-- "big oil" will get in the way, obviously.

And subsidized food crops are ALREADY in the way-- the gubment MUST REMOVE ALL SUBSIDIES if the crop is for FUEL.

If we're going to get anywhere with this, that is....

Big oil or other parties interested in keeping the status quo may get in the way now, but it's good to keep aware and keep researching even if nothing significant is getting done yet, because once we reach crisis stage, big oil is going to be no obstacle to the panicked rush for self-preservation.

[/captain pessimism]

Quote from: Griffin NoName on June 30, 2008, 01:08:09 PM
Of course we have an obesity scare going on in the UK, with endless expenditure and government intervention to try to control what we eat. A human fat donation bank could provide a more useful approach and prevent the lorry drivers strikes. ;)

speaking of driving in the UK-- I read recently that the  United States Empassy owes like a million dollars in fees for driving in London (the $16 a day use fee)----- they claim it is a tax and they don't have to pay taxes as they are diplomats. Buggers--- I say make them ride the bus as well. Well the USA and UK do have a history of taxation issues  :mrgreen:
And walking helps one loose body fat (most people some people no)!

Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on July 01, 2008, 01:14:02 AM
But, my favorite fuel-crop is Sawgrass.  It's basically a weed, and since it's grass, once planted, you "harvest" it by mowing not unlike collecting hay.  3-4 crops a year, in some areas.

Which brings up yet another possible HUGE resource for biofuel:  algae 'farms' in vast areas of the ocean.  There are already polluted areas of the ocean that have HUGE algae blooms because of farm ferterlizer runoff issues.  The sea-bottom has been killed off from this.

I did not know about sawgrass-- but it does make great sense---- mow and go-- come to think of it I have too read about using grass clippings. And harvesting Algae is a good idea too.

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on June 30, 2008, 07:42:55 PM
Industrial hemp has very little THC, was banned in the US after the cotton and wood lobby felt threatened (back in the 30s), remains banned due to 'moral' reasons (it's association with marijuana), and quite likely will remain banned for the same stupid reasons.

EXACTLY---- and that is a good point about diff's in THC content. That is good to remember that many plants have varrying values of the active ingredient (IE: chili peppers).


and Chatty yes-- hemp makes beautiful cloth, and if I remeber reading somewhere the dreaded cloth moth don't like it.

Quote from: anthrobabe on July 01, 2008, 06:29:55 AM
speaking of driving in the UK-- I read recently that the  United States Empassy owes like a million dollars in fees for driving in London (the $16 a day use fee)-----

Yes, it's been a big scandal over here :ROFL:

Quote
and Chatty yes-- hemp makes beautiful cloth, and if I remeber reading somewhere the dreaded cloth moth don't like it.

Isn't hemp cloth scratchy to wear?  Of course, without oil we wouldn't all have soft namby-pamby skin but hides as thick as rhinoseruses ;)