Re: Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by SeaNymph, Mar 1, 2010.

  1. SeaNymph

    SeaNymph Guest

    So called alternative energies, such as biofuels, create an enormous amount
    of pollution when produced. Then there is the issue of biofuels reducing
    gas mileage, causing people to buy more, since it doesn't burn as hot as
    gasoline. And let's not forget the increase in the cost of transportation,
    considering that many such fuels cannot be transported in existing pipelines
    due to the possibility of water contamination.


    "Bullwinkle" <> wrote in message
    news:-privat.org...
    > March 1, 2010
    >
    > Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels, according to report
    > Using fossil fuel in vehicles is better for the environment than so-called
    > green fuels made from crops, according to a government study seen by The
    > Times.
    >
    > The findings show that the Department for Transport's target for raising
    > the
    > level of biofuel in all fuel sold in Britain will result in millions of
    > acres of forest being logged or burnt down and converted to plantations.
    > The
    > study, likely to force a review of the target, concludes that some of the
    > most commonly-used biofuel crops fail to meet the minimum sustainability
    > standard set by the European Commission.
    >
    > Under the standard, each litre of biofuel should reduce emissions by at
    > least 35 per cent compared with burning a litre of fossil fuel. Yet the
    > study shows that palm oil increases emissions by 31 per cent because of
    > the
    > carbon released when forest and grassland is turned into plantations. Rape
    > seed and soy also fail to meet the standard.
    >
    > The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation this year requires 3¼ per cent of
    > all fuel sold to come from crops. The proportion is due to increase each
    > year and by 2020 is required to be 13 per cent. The DfT commissioned
    > E4tech,
    > a consultancy, to investigate the overall impact of its biofuel target on
    > forests and other undeveloped land.
    >
    > The EC has conducted its own research, but is refusing to publish the
    > results. A leaked internal memo from the EC's agriculture directorate
    > reveals its concern that Europe's entire biofuels industry, which receives
    > almost £3 billion a year in subsidies, would be jeopardised if indirect
    > changes in land use were included in sustainability standards. A senior
    > official added to the memo in handwriting: "An unguided use of ILUC
    > [indirect land use change] would kill biofuels in the EU."
    >
    > The EC hopes to protect its biofuel target by issuing revised standards
    > that
    > would give palm plantations the same status as natural forests. Officials
    > appear to have accepted arguments put forward by the palm oil industry
    > that
    > palms are just another type of tree.
    >
    > A draft of the new rules, obtained by The Times, states that palm oil
    > should
    > be declared sustainable if it comes from a "continuously forested area",
    > which it defines as areas where trees can reach at least heights of 5m,
    > making up crown cover of more than 30 per cent. "This means, for example,
    > that a change from forest to oil palm plantation would not per se
    > constitute
    > a breach of the criterion," it adds.
    >
    > Clearing rainforest for biofuel plantations releases carbon stored in
    > trees
    > and soil. It takes up to 840 years for a palm oil plantation to soak up
    > the
    > carbon emitted when the rainforest it replaced was burnt. The expansion of
    > the palm oil industry in Indonesia has turned it into the third-largest
    > CO2
    > emitter, after China and the US. Indonesia loses an area of forest the
    > size
    > of Wales every year and the orang-utan is on the brink of extinction in
    > Sumatra.
    >
    > Last year, 127 million litres of palm oil was added to diesel sold to
    > motorists in Britain, including 64 million litres from Malaysia and 27
    > million litres from Indonesia. Kenneth Richter, biofuels campaigner for
    > Friends of the Earth, said: "The billions of subsidy for biofuels would be
    > better spent on greener cars and improved public transport."
    >
    SeaNymph, Mar 1, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SeaNymph

    Ferd.Berfle Guest

    "....But the beauty of the left is that facts will never get in the way of
    ideology....."

    http://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2010/03/01/we_need_green_money,_not_green_jobs


    "SeaNymph" <> wrote in message
    news:hmh505$24l$-september.org...
    > So called alternative energies, such as biofuels, create an enormous
    > amount of pollution when produced. Then there is the issue of biofuels
    > reducing gas mileage, causing people to buy more, since it doesn't burn as
    > hot as gasoline. And let's not forget the increase in the cost of
    > transportation, considering that many such fuels cannot be transported in
    > existing pipelines due to the possibility of water contamination.
    >
    >
    > "Bullwinkle" <> wrote in message
    > news:-privat.org...
    >> March 1, 2010
    >>
    >> Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels, according to report
    >> Using fossil fuel in vehicles is better for the environment than
    >> so-called
    >> green fuels made from crops, according to a government study seen by The
    >> Times.
    >>
    >> The findings show that the Department for Transport's target for raising
    >> the
    >> level of biofuel in all fuel sold in Britain will result in millions of
    >> acres of forest being logged or burnt down and converted to plantations.
    >> The
    >> study, likely to force a review of the target, concludes that some of the
    >> most commonly-used biofuel crops fail to meet the minimum sustainability
    >> standard set by the European Commission.
    >>
    >> Under the standard, each litre of biofuel should reduce emissions by at
    >> least 35 per cent compared with burning a litre of fossil fuel. Yet the
    >> study shows that palm oil increases emissions by 31 per cent because of
    >> the
    >> carbon released when forest and grassland is turned into plantations.
    >> Rape
    >> seed and soy also fail to meet the standard.
    >>
    >> The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation this year requires 3¼ per cent
    >> of
    >> all fuel sold to come from crops. The proportion is due to increase each
    >> year and by 2020 is required to be 13 per cent. The DfT commissioned
    >> E4tech,
    >> a consultancy, to investigate the overall impact of its biofuel target on
    >> forests and other undeveloped land.
    >>
    >> The EC has conducted its own research, but is refusing to publish the
    >> results. A leaked internal memo from the EC's agriculture directorate
    >> reveals its concern that Europe's entire biofuels industry, which
    >> receives
    >> almost £3 billion a year in subsidies, would be jeopardised if indirect
    >> changes in land use were included in sustainability standards. A senior
    >> official added to the memo in handwriting: "An unguided use of ILUC
    >> [indirect land use change] would kill biofuels in the EU."
    >>
    >> The EC hopes to protect its biofuel target by issuing revised standards
    >> that
    >> would give palm plantations the same status as natural forests. Officials
    >> appear to have accepted arguments put forward by the palm oil industry
    >> that
    >> palms are just another type of tree.
    >>
    >> A draft of the new rules, obtained by The Times, states that palm oil
    >> should
    >> be declared sustainable if it comes from a "continuously forested area",
    >> which it defines as areas where trees can reach at least heights of 5m,
    >> making up crown cover of more than 30 per cent. "This means, for example,
    >> that a change from forest to oil palm plantation would not per se
    >> constitute
    >> a breach of the criterion," it adds.
    >>
    >> Clearing rainforest for biofuel plantations releases carbon stored in
    >> trees
    >> and soil. It takes up to 840 years for a palm oil plantation to soak up
    >> the
    >> carbon emitted when the rainforest it replaced was burnt. The expansion
    >> of
    >> the palm oil industry in Indonesia has turned it into the third-largest
    >> CO2
    >> emitter, after China and the US. Indonesia loses an area of forest the
    >> size
    >> of Wales every year and the orang-utan is on the brink of extinction in
    >> Sumatra.
    >>
    >> Last year, 127 million litres of palm oil was added to diesel sold to
    >> motorists in Britain, including 64 million litres from Malaysia and 27
    >> million litres from Indonesia. Kenneth Richter, biofuels campaigner for
    >> Friends of the Earth, said: "The billions of subsidy for biofuels would
    >> be
    >> better spent on greener cars and improved public transport."
    >>

    >
    >
    Ferd.Berfle, Mar 1, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SeaNymph

    Leo Guest

    Not only biofuels have problems, wind power is also proving to be a
    non-starter.

    Most wind power is produced in remote locations and then has to be
    transmitted to urban centers requiring miles and miles of high voltage
    transmission lines. In Texas, the construction of these transmission lines
    is embroiled in controversy as land owners object to the spoiling of their
    view and challenging the construction in court.

    --

    LEO
    A wishbone has never taken place of a backbone.

    "SeaNymph" <> wrote in message
    news:hmh505$24l$-september.org...
    > So called alternative energies, such as biofuels, create an enormous
    > amount of pollution when produced. Then there is the issue of biofuels
    > reducing gas mileage, causing people to buy more, since it doesn't burn as
    > hot as gasoline. And let's not forget the increase in the cost of
    > transportation, considering that many such fuels cannot be transported in
    > existing pipelines due to the possibility of water contamination.
    Leo, Mar 1, 2010
    #3
  4. SeaNymph

    NotMe Guest

    "SeaNymph" <> wrote in message
    news:hmh505$24l$-september.org...
    > So called alternative energies, such as biofuels, create an enormous
    > amount of pollution when produced. Then there is the issue of biofuels
    > reducing gas mileage, causing people to buy more, since it doesn't burn as
    > hot as gasoline. And let's not forget the increase in the cost of
    > transportation, considering that many such fuels cannot be transported in
    > existing pipelines due to the possibility of water contamination.


    Water is often used to separate one grade of fuel for another in pipe lines.
    It's separated out on the receiving end. Fuel with too much water or a mix
    of fuels is use for boiler fuel. This has been going on for decades.

    There are many 'crops' that do not require a plantation such as industrial
    hemp that can be used for bio-fuel. Several of the A&M Universities in the
    south (USA) are playing with kudzu (spl) as a source of bio fuel. That
    stuff will grown most anywhere, needs no cultivation, hell it's damned hard
    to kill.

    As for hemp it *IS* a weed and grows like one in creeks and ditches. (some
    places it's called 'wildwood weed" not good to smoke but some have been
    known to imbibe.

    " biofuels, create an enormous amount of pollution when produced" ever been
    inside a working refinery?


    > "Bullwinkle" <> wrote in message
    > news:-privat.org...
    >> March 1, 2010
    >>
    >> Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels, according to report
    >> Using fossil fuel in vehicles is better for the environment than
    >> so-called
    >> green fuels made from crops, according to a government study seen by The
    >> Times.
    >>
    >> The findings show that the Department for Transport's target for raising
    >> the
    >> level of biofuel in all fuel sold in Britain will result in millions of
    >> acres of forest being logged or burnt down and converted to plantations.
    >> The
    >> study, likely to force a review of the target, concludes that some of the
    >> most commonly-used biofuel crops fail to meet the minimum sustainability
    >> standard set by the European Commission.
    >>
    >> Under the standard, each litre of biofuel should reduce emissions by at
    >> least 35 per cent compared with burning a litre of fossil fuel. Yet the
    >> study shows that palm oil increases emissions by 31 per cent because of
    >> the
    >> carbon released when forest and grassland is turned into plantations.
    >> Rape
    >> seed and soy also fail to meet the standard.
    >>
    >> The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation this year requires 3¼ per cent
    >> of
    >> all fuel sold to come from crops. The proportion is due to increase each
    >> year and by 2020 is required to be 13 per cent. The DfT commissioned
    >> E4tech,
    >> a consultancy, to investigate the overall impact of its biofuel target on
    >> forests and other undeveloped land.
    >>
    >> The EC has conducted its own research, but is refusing to publish the
    >> results. A leaked internal memo from the EC's agriculture directorate
    >> reveals its concern that Europe's entire biofuels industry, which
    >> receives
    >> almost £3 billion a year in subsidies, would be jeopardised if indirect
    >> changes in land use were included in sustainability standards. A senior
    >> official added to the memo in handwriting: "An unguided use of ILUC
    >> [indirect land use change] would kill biofuels in the EU."
    >>
    >> The EC hopes to protect its biofuel target by issuing revised standards
    >> that
    >> would give palm plantations the same status as natural forests. Officials
    >> appear to have accepted arguments put forward by the palm oil industry
    >> that
    >> palms are just another type of tree.
    >>
    >> A draft of the new rules, obtained by The Times, states that palm oil
    >> should
    >> be declared sustainable if it comes from a "continuously forested area",
    >> which it defines as areas where trees can reach at least heights of 5m,
    >> making up crown cover of more than 30 per cent. "This means, for example,
    >> that a change from forest to oil palm plantation would not per se
    >> constitute
    >> a breach of the criterion," it adds.
    >>
    >> Clearing rainforest for biofuel plantations releases carbon stored in
    >> trees
    >> and soil. It takes up to 840 years for a palm oil plantation to soak up
    >> the
    >> carbon emitted when the rainforest it replaced was burnt. The expansion
    >> of
    >> the palm oil industry in Indonesia has turned it into the third-largest
    >> CO2
    >> emitter, after China and the US. Indonesia loses an area of forest the
    >> size
    >> of Wales every year and the orang-utan is on the brink of extinction in
    >> Sumatra.
    >>
    >> Last year, 127 million litres of palm oil was added to diesel sold to
    >> motorists in Britain, including 64 million litres from Malaysia and 27
    >> million litres from Indonesia. Kenneth Richter, biofuels campaigner for
    >> Friends of the Earth, said: "The billions of subsidy for biofuels would
    >> be
    >> better spent on greener cars and improved public transport."
    >>

    >
    >
    NotMe, Mar 1, 2010
    #4
  5. SeaNymph

    NotMe Guest

    "Leo" <> wrote in message
    news:hmh98c$jp8$-september.org...
    > Not only biofuels have problems, wind power is also proving to be a
    > non-starter.
    >
    > Most wind power is produced in remote locations and then has to be
    > transmitted to urban centers requiring miles and miles of high voltage
    > transmission lines. In Texas, the construction of these transmission
    > lines is embroiled in controversy as land owners object to the spoiling of
    > their view and challenging the construction in court.


    You mean like what's taken place in NE in full view of the Kennedy compound?

    As to Texas most of those complaining don't have any income from the wind
    farms. Those that do are not as vocal in their objection.

    Good example my kids inherited an interest in a wind farm where the owner
    originally objected. When it turned out HE and his would be making money
    the objections vanished.
    NotMe, Mar 1, 2010
    #5
  6. SeaNymph

    Leo Guest

    Money is no doubt at the bottom of all the complaints. I've heard it said
    that the transmission line builders want to secure right of way for their
    transmission line for only $200.00 per mile.

    As an aside, the current cost for building a transmission line is about $1.3
    million per mile.

    --

    LEO
    A wishbone has never taken place of a backbone.

    "NotMe" <> wrote in message
    news:hmhd81$bj$-september.org...
    >
    > You mean like what's taken place in NE in full view of the Kennedy
    > compound?
    >
    > As to Texas most of those complaining don't have any income from the wind
    > farms. Those that do are not as vocal in their objection.
    >
    > Good example my kids inherited an interest in a wind farm where the owner
    > originally objected. When it turned out HE and his would be making money
    > the objections vanished.
    >
    Leo, Mar 1, 2010
    #6
  7. SeaNymph

    SeaNymph Guest

    I think you're missing the point. Biofuels cannot be transported in
    pipelines that contain water, any water, such as those pipelines currently
    used to transport petroleum products. The water pulls the ethanol out and
    causes the "fuel" to separate. IOW, we do not currently have the
    infrastructure to move biofuels through existing pipelines.

    As for whether or not I've ever been in a working refinery, yes, I have. I
    grew up on the gulf coast of Texas, refinery central. I also spent years
    working for Exxon on oil tankers, so I've been inside refineries in this
    country and others. That has nothing to do with the fact that the
    production of ethanol creates enormous amounts of pollution. Many other
    processes occur in refineries.

    Makes little difference what the biofuel is made of, the issues with
    production and transportation issues currently remain the same. We are
    spending our fuel money in foreign countries, something we don't need to be
    doing.

    http://genomicscience.energy.gov/biofuels/transportation.shtml


    "NotMe" <> wrote in message
    news:hmhciu$rdk$-september.org...
    >
    > "SeaNymph" <> wrote in message
    > news:hmh505$24l$-september.org...
    >> So called alternative energies, such as biofuels, create an enormous
    >> amount of pollution when produced. Then there is the issue of biofuels
    >> reducing gas mileage, causing people to buy more, since it doesn't burn
    >> as hot as gasoline. And let's not forget the increase in the cost of
    >> transportation, considering that many such fuels cannot be transported in
    >> existing pipelines due to the possibility of water contamination.

    >
    > Water is often used to separate one grade of fuel for another in pipe
    > lines. It's separated out on the receiving end. Fuel with too much water
    > or a mix of fuels is use for boiler fuel. This has been going on for
    > decades.
    >
    > There are many 'crops' that do not require a plantation such as industrial
    > hemp that can be used for bio-fuel. Several of the A&M Universities in
    > the south (USA) are playing with kudzu (spl) as a source of bio fuel.
    > That stuff will grown most anywhere, needs no cultivation, hell it's
    > damned hard to kill.
    >
    > As for hemp it *IS* a weed and grows like one in creeks and ditches.
    > (some places it's called 'wildwood weed" not good to smoke but some have
    > been known to imbibe.
    >
    > " biofuels, create an enormous amount of pollution when produced" ever
    > been inside a working refinery?
    >
    >
    >> "Bullwinkle" <> wrote in message
    >> news:-privat.org...
    >>> March 1, 2010
    >>>
    >>> Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels, according to report
    >>> Using fossil fuel in vehicles is better for the environment than
    >>> so-called
    >>> green fuels made from crops, according to a government study seen by The
    >>> Times.
    >>>
    >>> The findings show that the Department for Transport's target for raising
    >>> the
    >>> level of biofuel in all fuel sold in Britain will result in millions of
    >>> acres of forest being logged or burnt down and converted to plantations.
    >>> The
    >>> study, likely to force a review of the target, concludes that some of
    >>> the
    >>> most commonly-used biofuel crops fail to meet the minimum sustainability
    >>> standard set by the European Commission.
    >>>
    >>> Under the standard, each litre of biofuel should reduce emissions by at
    >>> least 35 per cent compared with burning a litre of fossil fuel. Yet the
    >>> study shows that palm oil increases emissions by 31 per cent because of
    >>> the
    >>> carbon released when forest and grassland is turned into plantations.
    >>> Rape
    >>> seed and soy also fail to meet the standard.
    >>>
    >>> The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation this year requires 3¼ per cent
    >>> of
    >>> all fuel sold to come from crops. The proportion is due to increase each
    >>> year and by 2020 is required to be 13 per cent. The DfT commissioned
    >>> E4tech,
    >>> a consultancy, to investigate the overall impact of its biofuel target
    >>> on
    >>> forests and other undeveloped land.
    >>>
    >>> The EC has conducted its own research, but is refusing to publish the
    >>> results. A leaked internal memo from the EC's agriculture directorate
    >>> reveals its concern that Europe's entire biofuels industry, which
    >>> receives
    >>> almost £3 billion a year in subsidies, would be jeopardised if indirect
    >>> changes in land use were included in sustainability standards. A senior
    >>> official added to the memo in handwriting: "An unguided use of ILUC
    >>> [indirect land use change] would kill biofuels in the EU."
    >>>
    >>> The EC hopes to protect its biofuel target by issuing revised standards
    >>> that
    >>> would give palm plantations the same status as natural forests.
    >>> Officials
    >>> appear to have accepted arguments put forward by the palm oil industry
    >>> that
    >>> palms are just another type of tree.
    >>>
    >>> A draft of the new rules, obtained by The Times, states that palm oil
    >>> should
    >>> be declared sustainable if it comes from a "continuously forested area",
    >>> which it defines as areas where trees can reach at least heights of 5m,
    >>> making up crown cover of more than 30 per cent. "This means, for
    >>> example,
    >>> that a change from forest to oil palm plantation would not per se
    >>> constitute
    >>> a breach of the criterion," it adds.
    >>>
    >>> Clearing rainforest for biofuel plantations releases carbon stored in
    >>> trees
    >>> and soil. It takes up to 840 years for a palm oil plantation to soak up
    >>> the
    >>> carbon emitted when the rainforest it replaced was burnt. The expansion
    >>> of
    >>> the palm oil industry in Indonesia has turned it into the third-largest
    >>> CO2
    >>> emitter, after China and the US. Indonesia loses an area of forest the
    >>> size
    >>> of Wales every year and the orang-utan is on the brink of extinction in
    >>> Sumatra.
    >>>
    >>> Last year, 127 million litres of palm oil was added to diesel sold to
    >>> motorists in Britain, including 64 million litres from Malaysia and 27
    >>> million litres from Indonesia. Kenneth Richter, biofuels campaigner for
    >>> Friends of the Earth, said: "The billions of subsidy for biofuels would
    >>> be
    >>> better spent on greener cars and improved public transport."
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    SeaNymph, Mar 1, 2010
    #7
  8. SeaNymph

    Rick Guest

    Leo wrote:
    > Not only biofuels have problems, wind power is also proving to be a
    > non-starter.
    >
    > Most wind power is produced in remote locations and then has to be
    > transmitted to urban centers requiring miles and miles of high voltage
    > transmission lines. In Texas, the construction of these transmission
    > lines is embroiled in controversy as land owners object to the spoiling
    > of their view and challenging the construction in court.
    >


    Location IS important in producing electricity from solar power because
    the wide open spaces needed are often far from where the power lines
    are. The power lines were developed parallel to the water ways where
    hydroelectric power was developed (TVA). Note that nuclear power also
    requires access to water for cooling.
    Rick, Mar 2, 2010
    #8
  9. SeaNymph

    Whiskers Guest

    [cross-posting removed]
    On 2010-03-01, SeaNymph <> wrote:
    > "NotMe" <> wrote in message
    > news:hmhciu$rdk$-september.org...
    >> "SeaNymph" <> wrote in message
    >> news:hmh505$24l$-september.org...


    [...]

    > I think you're missing the point. Biofuels cannot be transported in
    > pipelines that contain water, any water, such as those pipelines currently
    > used to transport petroleum products. The water pulls the ethanol out and
    > causes the "fuel" to separate. IOW, we do not currently have the
    > infrastructure to move biofuels through existing pipelines.


    Alcohols are not the only 'biofuel'; but when they are used then it's true
    that the water content has to be carefully controlled. It probably isn't
    beyond the ability of pipeline operators to manage it satisfactorily,
    though - either using dedicated pipes, or sending the liquids down the
    single pipe in a sequence that prevents the alcohol from collecting too
    much water or other contamination.

    In the EU almost all road-vehicle fuel includes a proportion of 'biofuel',
    either alcohols in fuel for spark-ignition engines or vegetable oil for
    diesels, so the pipelines can clearly cope adequately.

    Some people run their diesel engines on 100% 'biodiesel' or even raw
    vegetable oil. Used cooking fat is the 'greenest' source of biodiesel.

    [...]

    > Makes little difference what the biofuel is made of, the issues with
    > production and transportation issues currently remain the same. We are
    > spending our fuel money in foreign countries, something we don't need to be
    > doing.
    >
    > http://genomicscience.energy.gov/biofuels/transportation.shtml
    >


    [...]

    Yes, as that article hints at and the EU report that started this thread
    clearly states, food crops can't be eaten if they are converted into fuel,
    and the market for biofuel serves to increase the rate at which ancient
    forests are cleared destructively to make way for (often unsustainable)
    "palm oil" plantations - and neither factor does anything to help the
    heavy users of fuel to be self-sufficient nor much to reduce the global
    release of pollution and 'green-house gas'.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
    Whiskers, Mar 2, 2010
    #9
  10. SeaNymph

    Ferd.Berfle Guest

    "Whiskers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > [cross-posting removed]
    > On 2010-03-01, SeaNymph <> wrote:
    >> "NotMe" <> wrote in message
    >> news:hmhciu$rdk$-september.org...
    >>> "SeaNymph" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hmh505$24l$-september.org...

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> I think you're missing the point. Biofuels cannot be transported in
    >> pipelines that contain water, any water, such as those pipelines
    >> currently
    >> used to transport petroleum products. The water pulls the ethanol out
    >> and
    >> causes the "fuel" to separate. IOW, we do not currently have the
    >> infrastructure to move biofuels through existing pipelines.

    >
    > Alcohols are not the only 'biofuel'; but when they are used then it's true
    > that the water content has to be carefully controlled. It probably isn't
    > beyond the ability of pipeline operators to manage it satisfactorily,
    > though - either using dedicated pipes, or sending the liquids down the
    > single pipe in a sequence that prevents the alcohol from collecting too
    > much water or other contamination.
    >
    > In the EU almost all road-vehicle fuel includes a proportion of 'biofuel',
    > either alcohols in fuel for spark-ignition engines or vegetable oil for
    > diesels, so the pipelines can clearly cope adequately.
    >
    > Some people run their diesel engines on 100% 'biodiesel' or even raw
    > vegetable oil. Used cooking fat is the 'greenest' source of biodiesel.
    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> Makes little difference what the biofuel is made of, the issues with
    >> production and transportation issues currently remain the same. We are
    >> spending our fuel money in foreign countries, something we don't need to
    >> be
    >> doing.
    >>
    >> http://genomicscience.energy.gov/biofuels/transportation.shtml
    >>

    >
    > [...]
    >
    > Yes, as that article hints at and the EU report that started this thread
    > clearly states, food crops can't be eaten if they are converted into fuel,
    > and the market for biofuel serves to increase the rate at which ancient
    > forests are cleared destructively to make way for (often unsustainable)
    > "palm oil" plantations - and neither factor does anything to help the
    > heavy users of fuel to be self-sufficient nor much to reduce the global
    > release of pollution and 'green-house gas'.
    >
    >

    http://www.enewsbuilder.net/aopl/e_article000570935.cfm

    ..........The prospect of more ethanol in more markets across the country has
    raised the issue of transporting ethanol by pipeline, which is rarely done
    in the United States. When it occurs, it involves generally small pipelines
    with few shippers and a limited slate of products.

    In the near term, it is likely that most of the projected increase in
    shipments of ethanol to terminals will be handled by tanker truck and rail
    tank car as opposed to pipelines. Except for a few proprietary pipelines,
    the refined product pipeline operators do not ship ethanol in their systems.

    Wider use of pipelines to transport ethanol is problematic for several
    reasons. It means addressing ethanol's water affinity problem (ethanol is
    water soluble meaning it absorbs water). Because water accumulation in
    pipelines is a normal occurrence (in most cases water enters the system
    through terminal and refinery tank roofs or can be dissolved in fuels during
    refinery processes), introducing ethanol into a pipeline risks rendering it
    unusable as a transportation fuel.

    The second challenge to transporting ethanol by pipeline is the need to
    address corrosion issues. Ethanol-related corrosion problems can result
    from how ethanol behaves in the pipe. There is some evidence that ethanol
    in high concentrations can lead to various forms of corrosion including
    internal stress corrosion cracking, which is very hard to detect. This
    damage may be accelerated at weld joints or "hard spots" where the steel
    metallurgy has been altered.

    While it may be technically possible to address issues relating to
    transporting ethanol via pipeline, significant investments in new and
    modified facilities and operational practices would be necessary......
    Ferd.Berfle, Mar 2, 2010
    #10
  11. SeaNymph

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2010-03-02, Ferd.Berfle <> wrote:
    > "Whiskers" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> [cross-posting removed]
    >> On 2010-03-01, SeaNymph <> wrote:
    >>> "NotMe" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hmhciu$rdk$-september.org...
    >>>> "SeaNymph" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:hmh505$24l$-september.org...

    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >>> I think you're missing the point. Biofuels cannot be transported in
    >>> pipelines that contain water, any water, such as those pipelines
    >>> currently
    >>> used to transport petroleum products. The water pulls the ethanol out
    >>> and
    >>> causes the "fuel" to separate. IOW, we do not currently have the
    >>> infrastructure to move biofuels through existing pipelines.

    >>
    >> Alcohols are not the only 'biofuel'; but when they are used then it's true
    >> that the water content has to be carefully controlled. It probably isn't
    >> beyond the ability of pipeline operators to manage it satisfactorily,
    >> though - either using dedicated pipes, or sending the liquids down the
    >> single pipe in a sequence that prevents the alcohol from collecting too
    >> much water or other contamination.


    [...]

    > http://www.enewsbuilder.net/aopl/e_article000570935.cfm
    >
    > .........The prospect of more ethanol in more markets across the country has
    > raised the issue of transporting ethanol by pipeline, which is rarely done
    > in the United States. When it occurs, it involves generally small pipelines
    > with few shippers and a limited slate of products.
    >
    > In the near term, it is likely that most of the projected increase in
    > shipments of ethanol to terminals will be handled by tanker truck and rail
    > tank car as opposed to pipelines. Except for a few proprietary pipelines,
    > the refined product pipeline operators do not ship ethanol in their systems.


    That's very inefficient and costly. And the mobile tankers will surely be
    at least as prone to adverse reaction with the alcohol as pipelines would
    be. (Although vodka and gin makers manage it somehow).

    > Wider use of pipelines to transport ethanol is problematic for several
    > reasons. It means addressing ethanol's water affinity problem (ethanol is
    > water soluble meaning it absorbs water). Because water accumulation in
    > pipelines is a normal occurrence (in most cases water enters the system
    > through terminal and refinery tank roofs or can be dissolved in fuels during
    > refinery processes), introducing ethanol into a pipeline risks rendering it
    > unusable as a transportation fuel.
    >
    > The second challenge to transporting ethanol by pipeline is the need to
    > address corrosion issues. Ethanol-related corrosion problems can result
    > from how ethanol behaves in the pipe. There is some evidence that ethanol
    > in high concentrations can lead to various forms of corrosion including
    > internal stress corrosion cracking, which is very hard to detect. This
    > damage may be accelerated at weld joints or "hard spots" where the steel
    > metallurgy has been altered.
    >
    > While it may be technically possible to address issues relating to
    > transporting ethanol via pipeline, significant investments in new and
    > modified facilities and operational practices would be necessary......


    The Brazilians have been doing it successfully for decades
    <http://www.gasandoil.com/GPM/samples/detail.asp?key=1312>

    During his lecture, Mr Gomes replied to the point raised by the
    Association of Oil Pipelines' (AOPL) representative, Eric Gustafson,
    about the potential for pipeline corrosion by ethanol, especially that
    produced from corn. In Mr Gustafson's assessment, the corrosion of
    pipelines is one of the greatest challenges the United States has in
    the biofuel area. "This is a critical technical point for the
    expansion of the pipeline network for the transportation of ethanol
    and has required a significant research programme", he affirmed. Mr
    Gomes reminded the audience that pipelines have been used in the
    Brazilian alcohol programme for 32 years and there has not been, until
    now, any significant corrosion. "In 1996, we transported 2m cum/yr of
    ethanol, equivalent to 20% of the Brazilian production of the product.
    In 2015, it will be 15m cum/yr", he pointed out.

    Of course the fuel pipelines in the US are probably owned and operated by
    the old oil companies. So I'm certain they'll have huge problems
    transporting alcohol - just not physical or chemical ones, if they're
    honest.

    As a side note, growing "corn" (maize?) to turn into ethanol for use as
    fuel is a pretty daft arrangement; corn is for eating - or possibly,
    drinking. Alcohol for fuel can be made more efficiently anyway from other
    less appetising things, such as wood waste or even algae, which can be
    grown in places less suitable for growing human food. In Brazil,
    sugar-cane is the main feed-stock for biofuels - and is much better used as
    fuel than for adding to processed food that makes people obese and rots
    their teeth.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
    Whiskers, Mar 3, 2010
    #11
  12. SeaNymph

    Ferd.Berfle Guest

    "Whiskers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2010-03-02, Ferd.Berfle <> wrote:
    >> "Whiskers" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> [cross-posting removed]
    >>> On 2010-03-01, SeaNymph <> wrote:
    >>>> "NotMe" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:hmhciu$rdk$-september.org...
    >>>>> "SeaNymph" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hmh505$24l$-september.org...
    >>>
    >>> [...]
    >>>
    >>>> I think you're missing the point. Biofuels cannot be transported in
    >>>> pipelines that contain water, any water, such as those pipelines
    >>>> currently
    >>>> used to transport petroleum products. The water pulls the ethanol out
    >>>> and
    >>>> causes the "fuel" to separate. IOW, we do not currently have the
    >>>> infrastructure to move biofuels through existing pipelines.
    >>>
    >>> Alcohols are not the only 'biofuel'; but when they are used then it's
    >>> true
    >>> that the water content has to be carefully controlled. It probably
    >>> isn't
    >>> beyond the ability of pipeline operators to manage it satisfactorily,
    >>> though - either using dedicated pipes, or sending the liquids down the
    >>> single pipe in a sequence that prevents the alcohol from collecting too
    >>> much water or other contamination.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> http://www.enewsbuilder.net/aopl/e_article000570935.cfm
    >>
    >> .........The prospect of more ethanol in more markets across the country
    >> has
    >> raised the issue of transporting ethanol by pipeline, which is rarely
    >> done
    >> in the United States. When it occurs, it involves generally small
    >> pipelines
    >> with few shippers and a limited slate of products.
    >>
    >> In the near term, it is likely that most of the projected increase in
    >> shipments of ethanol to terminals will be handled by tanker truck and
    >> rail
    >> tank car as opposed to pipelines. Except for a few proprietary
    >> pipelines,
    >> the refined product pipeline operators do not ship ethanol in their
    >> systems.

    >
    > That's very inefficient and costly. And the mobile tankers will surely be
    > at least as prone to adverse reaction with the alcohol as pipelines would
    > be. (Although vodka and gin makers manage it somehow).
    >
    >> Wider use of pipelines to transport ethanol is problematic for several
    >> reasons. It means addressing ethanol's water affinity problem (ethanol
    >> is
    >> water soluble meaning it absorbs water). Because water accumulation in
    >> pipelines is a normal occurrence (in most cases water enters the system
    >> through terminal and refinery tank roofs or can be dissolved in fuels
    >> during
    >> refinery processes), introducing ethanol into a pipeline risks rendering
    >> it
    >> unusable as a transportation fuel.
    >>
    >> The second challenge to transporting ethanol by pipeline is the need to
    >> address corrosion issues. Ethanol-related corrosion problems can result
    >> from how ethanol behaves in the pipe. There is some evidence that
    >> ethanol
    >> in high concentrations can lead to various forms of corrosion including
    >> internal stress corrosion cracking, which is very hard to detect. This
    >> damage may be accelerated at weld joints or "hard spots" where the steel
    >> metallurgy has been altered.
    >>
    >> While it may be technically possible to address issues relating to
    >> transporting ethanol via pipeline, significant investments in new and
    >> modified facilities and operational practices would be necessary......

    >
    > The Brazilians have been doing it successfully for decades


    yeah, right.
    Several of the small midwest feeders in the US are as large as the entire
    Brazilian system.

    Pipelines will transport 30% of the ethanol produced in Brazil in 2015


    > <http://www.gasandoil.com/GPM/samples/detail.asp?key=1312>
    >
    > During his lecture, Mr Gomes replied to the point raised by the
    > Association of Oil Pipelines' (AOPL) representative, Eric Gustafson,
    > about the potential for pipeline corrosion by ethanol, especially that
    > produced from corn. In Mr Gustafson's assessment, the corrosion of
    > pipelines is one of the greatest challenges the United States has in
    > the biofuel area. "This is a critical technical point for the
    > expansion of the pipeline network for the transportation of ethanol
    > and has required a significant research programme", he affirmed. Mr
    > Gomes reminded the audience that pipelines have been used in the
    > Brazilian alcohol programme for 32 years and there has not been, until
    > now, any significant corrosion. "In 1996, we transported 2m cum/yr of
    > ethanol, equivalent to 20% of the Brazilian production of the product.
    > In 2015, it will be 15m cum/yr", he pointed out.
    >
    > Of course the fuel pipelines in the US are probably owned and operated by
    > the old oil companies. So I'm certain they'll have huge problems
    > transporting alcohol - just not physical or chemical ones, if they're
    > honest.
    >

    So, you really are clueless regardingthe pipeline transportation systems in
    the US?

    > As a side note, growing "corn" (maize?) to turn into ethanol for use as
    > fuel is a pretty daft arrangement; corn is for eating - or possibly,
    > drinking. Alcohol for fuel can be made more efficiently anyway from other
    > less appetising things, such as wood waste or even algae, which can be
    > grown in places less suitable for growing human food. In Brazil,
    > sugar-cane is the main feed-stock for biofuels - and is much better used
    > as
    > fuel than for adding to processed food that makes people obese and rots
    > their teeth.
    >
    >
    Ferd.Berfle, Mar 3, 2010
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. boki
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    725
    Supervisor
    Mar 25, 2005
  2. fruitbat

    OT: Science has done more harm than good

    fruitbat, Oct 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    8,340
    James Hilton
    Oct 21, 2004
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    502
  4. richard

    why do we need fossil fuel?

    richard, Oct 29, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    2,778
    Bucky Breeder
    Oct 30, 2009
  5. Jenn
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    503
Loading...

Share This Page