| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
#ArtistsForPeace
#PropagandaCenter
#PoliticsAreParanoid
#Socialist-Anarchists
#Secular-Human
#The99Percent
#RealPinupArt
#OccupyDA
| Digital Art / Photomanipulation / Political | ©2013 *poasterchild |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More
|
Sta.sh
ahh, wrong shoes
This poaster has been prompted by several comments from other deviants such as ~cooljewl98 indicating a great lack of knowledge about different sources of biofuels. Most people know about ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, which is derived from corn. This is what ~cooljewl98 is talking about. It is simply moonshine made on an industrial scale. The sugar in corn is simply fermented and turned into alcohol. This process also works with sugar cane, sugar beets, and literally any other food crop (e.g., barley or apples).
But, it's a waste of food, and there's not nearly enough corn to meet the Nation' demand for liquid fuels for transportation (gasoline and diesel).
The other common process used these days is called transesterfication, and involves the chemical transformation of the fats or fatty oils found in soybean, canola, palm seeds, and other plants, or waste fats from restaurants. This is how biodiesel is made. Again, this method, while it works, is expensive and wastes food supplies that could be better used in other ways. Moreover, as with the production of ethanol, there is not nearly enough supply to meet a significant portion of the demand for liquid fuels.
The newest technologies, still in the development stage, involve using a process called pyrolysis, wherein biomass (any formerly living material containing carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen) is converted into a bio-oil, or "green petroleum." The advantages of this method are several. First, there is a large supply of biomass waste available from agriculture, forestry, municipal garbage, and other sources. About 1.3 billion ton of biomass wastes are available in the United States every year -- enough to replace about 25% of all gasoline and diesel consumption. Second, the supply is cheap -- cow manure for example is much cheaper than corn or soybeans. Third, this process turns environmental liabilities into environmental assets. Fourth, "green" fuels produced in this manner substantially reduce greenhouse gas and other pollutants, compared to both bio-fuels produced from corn or soybeans, and conventional liquid fuels produced from petroleum. This process is carbon neutral, meaning it adds NO carbon to the atmosphere.
Moreover, unlike ~cooljewl98's incorrect assertion, pyrolysis uses the gas produced during the reaction to supply the energy needed. It is self-sustaining and has a very positive energy balance.
Stop spreading ignorant misinformation in my gallery. . .and do some reading.
That being said, hitchhiking and carpooling obviously do help a lot.
But, it's a waste of food, and there's not nearly enough corn to meet the Nation' demand for liquid fuels for transportation (gasoline and diesel).
The other common process used these days is called transesterfication, and involves the chemical transformation of the fats or fatty oils found in soybean, canola, palm seeds, and other plants, or waste fats from restaurants. This is how biodiesel is made. Again, this method, while it works, is expensive and wastes food supplies that could be better used in other ways. Moreover, as with the production of ethanol, there is not nearly enough supply to meet a significant portion of the demand for liquid fuels.
The newest technologies, still in the development stage, involve using a process called pyrolysis, wherein biomass (any formerly living material containing carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen) is converted into a bio-oil, or "green petroleum." The advantages of this method are several. First, there is a large supply of biomass waste available from agriculture, forestry, municipal garbage, and other sources. About 1.3 billion ton of biomass wastes are available in the United States every year -- enough to replace about 25% of all gasoline and diesel consumption. Second, the supply is cheap -- cow manure for example is much cheaper than corn or soybeans. Third, this process turns environmental liabilities into environmental assets. Fourth, "green" fuels produced in this manner substantially reduce greenhouse gas and other pollutants, compared to both bio-fuels produced from corn or soybeans, and conventional liquid fuels produced from petroleum. This process is carbon neutral, meaning it adds NO carbon to the atmosphere.
You can read more about the availability of waste biomass here: [link]
Nevertheless, photosynthesis-based energy seems like a pretty promising solutoin to carbon issues, especially since photosynthesis obviously removes carbon from the atmosphere.
It's simple. The atmosphere seeks equilibrium, and over millions of years, arrived at the state it was prior to the Industrial Revolution. When you burn biomass based fuels, you are simply returning to the atmosphere the carbon that was removed from the atmosphere to grow the plant. Yes, when you burn the biomass fuel you are releasing C02, but the amount of CO2 released is the same as that which was previously absorbed. Ergo, carbon neutral.
But when you burn fossil fuels, you are releasing carbon that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago, and thus, upsetting the equilibrium, primarily through the greater absorption of solar energy (heat). A rise in average global temperatures and more extreme weather patterns are two consequences of the imbalance we have produced by injecting so much fossil (formerly sequestered) carbon into the atmosphere.
The good news is that my friend Foster Ablevor at Utah State [link] has just patented a process that does actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere and turns it into diesel fuel, which accounts for one-third of all liquid fuels for wheeled transportation, as well as fuel for trains, heavy equipment, and home heating.
I'm Ph.D. qualified in this shit. Trust me.
Secondly, there is no free lunch to be had in the current types of biofuel. Even if you use fuel which originally came about via photosynthesis, the process of growing that plant costs resources(energy, fertiliser, clean water, etc.), which cost energy. Furthermore, transforming that plant into fuel also costs energy and releases CO2, none of which goes toward actually moving your car forward on the highway. So while the amount of sequestered CO2 released by burning biofuels is lower than when burning pure fossil fuel, there is an extra CO2 cost associated with producing the biofuel that you don't see when you simply look at what comes out of your exhaust pipe.
The synthetic diesel looks promising as a stopgap solution, but honestly if we want access to the kind of energy that an exponentially growing poulation of humans is going to need if the rest of the world wants to live in a comparable level of comfort as the developed world, we're going to need a source of fuel that doesn't emit greenhouse gases at all. That's why I look toward artificial photosynthesis and/or fusion energy as a "final" solution.
In southern Appalachia, where I live, even white oak is gone within 25 - 40 years, if that, after the tree falls.