/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10915793

18KiB, 285x215, IMG_7590.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Biofuels

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 14:17:53 2019 No.10915793 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>10915807 >>10915838 >>10915883 >>10915897 >>10915925 >>10915928 >>10916021 >>10916088 >>10916111 >>10916279 >>10916298 >>10916317 >>10916796 >>10918596

Can they play a large role of the sustainable energy mix?
Which crop generates the highest yield?
>picrelated Miscanthus x giganteus

Wikipedia gives an energy yield of 18 GJ per dry ton and a french trial autumn harvest of 42-49 tons/ha. Giving 800 GJ per ha.
Anything better out there?
Also why are farmers bothering with inferior crops?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 14:31:02 No.10915807 Report

Quoted By: >>10916039 >>10916691

>>10915793
One argument says that, they use more traditional fossil fuels to grow, harvest, process and produce than what they claim to provide in terms of actual energy resource

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 14:52:18 No.10915838 Report

Quoted By: >>10916107 >>10916796

>>10915793
Biofuels are just a meme that grant writers mention to get extra money when they don’t actually do any biofuels related research. Gas is too cheap atm to get biofuels research grants, so no one researches it, and i’ve heard the research isn’t likely to be fruitful anyway. In cyanobacteria at least you can perform biosynthesis during the lifetime of the stock before harvest, and use the money gained to subsidize fuel costs, but also who would be so virtuous?

t. Guy who applied to grad schools hoping to do biofuels research and was disappointed by the state of the field.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 15:15:13 No.10915883 Report

Quoted By: >>10916112 >>10916222

>>10915793
My biotechnology professor says that biofuels are useless to research because solar and wind is better

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 15:26:09 No.10915897 Report

Quoted By: >>10915996 >>10916043

>>10915793
800GJ per ha per year? Or what timeframe are we talking about? Cause averaged out over one year thats roughly 25kW of power being produced, which is fucking nothing even compared with the same area covered in solar panels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 15:46:17 No.10915925 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915793
We would have to turn the entire United States into a single biofuel farm to produce enough for our needs in the US alone. It's just not feasible.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Herning-Studsgård.jpg, 326KiB, 1920x1186

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 15:47:21 No.10915928 Report

Quoted By: >>10916115

>>10915793
Growing crops for energy is inherently inefficient. Land is better used for food production. Only biogas production from waste is useful.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO IMG_7594.jpg, 70KiB, 840x550

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 16:25:43 No.10915996 Report

Quoted By: >>10916048

>>10915897
Yes but its harder and way costlier to put and maintain solar panels on a surface than it is to grow some supergrass/bamboo.

The worlds primary energy consumption is about 160000 TWh per year.
576 billion GJ
So you'd need 720 million ha or 7.2 million square km of prime arable land in mild conditions to provide the world's energy in the form of Miscantus giganteum crop.
That's about half of current day's arable land.
Using 10% of all farmland could yield 20% of global energy consumption.
Also crop yields are likely to increase with rising CO2 concentrations.
And perhaps something better will come along.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 16:38:27 No.10916021 Report

Quoted By: >>10916034

>>10915793
>Biofuels
maybe someday by growing algae in tanks and/or pools, in fields you lose the energy gain to tractors et al.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 16:44:03 No.10916034 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916021
I doubt tractors to cut crass will use that much energy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 16:46:15 No.10916039 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915807
depends on the biofuels, sugar cane is viable under tropical high productivity conditions but maize to ethanol is crap

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 16:47:31 No.10916043 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915897
actually that is a better figure than solar panels

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 16:49:02 No.10916048 Report

Quoted By: >>10916068

>>10915996
>Yes but its harder and way costlier to put and maintain solar panels on a surface than it is to grow some supergrass/bamboo.

Can you actually provide evidence that this statement is true rather than your opinion?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 16:57:54 No.10916067 Report

Quoted By:

Biofuels are limited by inefficiencies in biological energy storage. A good rule of thumb is that 90% of the energy is lost every time you move up a trophic level. Trophic levels are basically the food chain starting with the sun so for biofuels it would be something like

>Sun: 100%, ~6000 Wh/sq m
>Vegetation: 10% ~600 Wh/sq m

Then to use it as fuel you either have to burn it or move up another trophic level by converting it to alcohol first
>Burning (~20% efficient): 2% ~120 Wh/sq m
>Fermenting first (~2%): 0.2% ~12 Wh/sq m

Compared to solar at roughly 20% efficiency
Sun: 100% ~6000 Wh/sq m
Solar: 20% ~1200 Wh/sq m

That being said, it kicks the shit out of the efficiency of fossil fuels and it's a carbon neutral energy source so it shouldn't be spurned.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 16:58:06 No.10916068 Report

Quoted By: >>10916072 >>10916076

>>10916048
seeds are cheaper than engineering and you don't have to clean them
energy capture availability is only around 1-2% compared to 15-25 for solar
direct solar synthesis of hydrocarbons like ascetic acid might be a better mid point

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 16:59:39 No.10916072 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916068
You also don't need to water and grow solar panels. This is still just a contest of opinions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:01:38 No.10916076 Report

Quoted By: >>10916086

>>10916068
>direct solar synthesis of hydrocarbons like ascetic acid might be a better mid point
Solar synthesis is definitely more efficient than biomass, but it's still less efficient than photovoltaic and I think they have similar costs and maintenance issues.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:06:04 No.10916086 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916076
direct synthesis has the benefit of not having to worry about an intermediary and you can produce readily stored liquid fuels .
and ammonia is pretty important but are legumes a better option like genetransferring the pathways into wheat

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:06:12 No.10916088 Report

Quoted By: >>10916119 >>10916167 >>10916304 >>10916349 >>10916362 >>10916431 >>10916444 >>10918587

>>10915793
>800GJ/ha
>2.537W/m^2
>Exceeds the solar constant by 2x
Gee bill how come your mom lets you have two wieners?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:14:21 No.10916107 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915838
>just a meme
Lrn2meme fgt pls

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:15:21 No.10916111 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915793
How is the fertilizer made?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:16:21 No.10916112 Report

Quoted By: >>10916171

>>10915883
My physics professor says that solar and wind are useless to research because nuclear is better.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Ethanol Methane Generation Loop 01.png, 37KiB, 1184x654

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:17:52 No.10916115 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915928
Based biogas poster. We need to get as much out of something before the cycle loops back.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:18:53 No.10916119 Report

Quoted By: >>10916124

>>10916088
You are forgetting the air, water, and soil/fertilizer inputs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:20:41 No.10916124 Report

Quoted By: >>10916140 >>10916142 >>10916214 >>10916236 >>10916250 >>10916257

>>10916119
Explain to me how air and water provide energy to a plant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:25:49 No.10916140 Report

Quoted By: >>10916156 >>10916250 >>10916257

>>10916124
Air doesn't contribute, but he's right about water and fertilizer. You need energy to pump water and make fertilizer and the plants are likely taking quite a bit of their energy from the fertilizer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:26:07 No.10916142 Report

Quoted By: >>10916156 >>10916257

>>10916124
Why are you even on /sci/? Did you get here from some blog popsci article or did someone link you from /b/? Jesus fucking Christ.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:29:59 No.10916156 Report

Quoted By: >>10916174 >>10916250 >>10916257

>>10916140
So what's the chemical equation then? All you bio-fags in this thread should know how fertilizer breaks down and how much energy per kilo it releases.

Or are you all just here from a blog post or linked from /b/ like this fucking moron. >>10916142
Who can't even write a chemical equation to back up his dumb ass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:33:38 No.10916167 Report

Quoted By: >>10916205 >>10916257

>>10916088
Corn is 98 GJ per ton and you can get 10 ton/acre of corn grain. The sun is merely part of the process.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:36:17 No.10916171 Report

Quoted By: >>10916257 >>10917018

>>10916112
My geology professor says that coal and oil will never stop being used until they run out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:37:05 No.10916174 Report

Quoted By: >>10916182 >>10916257

>>10916156
>t. high school drop out
I bet you don't even know how the amount of CO2 created by fuel can weigh more than the fuel itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:38:29 No.10916182 Report

Quoted By: >>10916191 >>10916250 >>10916257

>>10916174
>t. never passed homeschool
Still not seeing an equation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:39:39 No.10916187 Report

Quoted By: >>10916257

Grass and weeds bitches. We're just wasting that shit. Oh and shit, we're just wasting that shit too. Fucking wasted corn, I swear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:39:54 No.10916191 Report

Quoted By: >>10916196 >>10916199 >>10916223 >>10916257

>>10916182
>asking for an equation
This is like asking for muffler bearings. You have no clue what you are even talking about. lol

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1566179699193.jpg, 28KiB, 457x446

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:40:57 No.10916196 Report

Quoted By: >>10916250 >>10916257

>>10916191
POST THE FUCKING EQUATION OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:41:16 No.10916199 Report

Quoted By: >>10916250 >>10916257

>>10916191
>You have no clue what you are even talking about.
That makes two of us.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:42:55 No.10916205 Report

Quoted By: >>10916214 >>10916257

>>10916167
>The sun is merely part of the process.
So where do we get the rest of the energy for the process? Is it from clean sources? How much does the sun actually provide? 50% 10% 5% 3%?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:45:58 No.10916214 Report

Quoted By: >>10916227 >>10916249 >>10916257

>>10916124
>>10916205
The process is called "photosynthesis" and is something you should have learned in grade school. It requires more than just the sun to perform. The result is a product that is higher in energy than just the amount of solar energy used to help create it. Your question is so fucking inane and you really need to learn to use google or go back to grade school.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:47:32 No.10916222 Report

Quoted By: >>10916257

>>10915883
Wind is literally useless. It gets billed as having a power density of 500+ W/m2, but in reality it's less than 1 W/m2 on average.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO IMG_0159.jpg, 40KiB, 600x450

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:47:39 No.10916223 Report

Quoted By: >>10916225 >>10916257

>>10916191
Based muffler bearing poster.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault.jpg, 161KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:48:27 No.10916225 Report

Quoted By: >>10916257

>>10916223

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Photosynthesysforchildren.png, 65KiB, 602x286

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:48:52 No.10916227 Report

Quoted By: >>10916236 >>10916257

>>10916214
Weird how there is no nitrogen in this equation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:51:29 No.10916236 Report

Quoted By: >>10916243 >>10916257 >>10916269

>>10916227
Weird how that has nothing to do with the question in >>10916124

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 132.jpg, 56KiB, 800x800

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:53:05 No.10916242 Report

Quoted By: >>10916257 >>10916269

This thread is the prime example of what happens when you drop out of school and become a NEET then go online to ask questions that you should have learned about in school.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:53:12 No.10916243 Report

Quoted By: >>10916250 >>10916257 >>10916269 >>10916283

>>10916236
Also weird how it doesn't show air and water providing energy to a plant it shows the absorption of energy to convert air and water into sugar and oxygen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:54:15 No.10916249 Report

Quoted By: >>10916257 >>10916269 >>10916283

>>10916214
>The result is a product that is higher in energy than just the amount of solar energy used to help create it.
False, the conversion efficiency of photosynthesis is 6%.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:54:25 No.10916250 Report

Quoted By: >>10916255 >>10916257 >>10916265

>>10916199
>>10916196
>>10916182
>>10916156
>>10916140
>>10916124
>>10916243
>doesn't know what photosynthesis is

how is this even possible?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:55:46 No.10916255 Report

Quoted By: >>10916265

>>10916250
Do you?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 13212.jpg, 35KiB, 800x533

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:56:12 No.10916257 Report

Quoted By: >>10916265 >>10916291 >>10916403

>>10916250
>>10916249
>>10916243
>>10916242
>>10916236
>>10916227
>>10916225
>>10916223
>>10916222
>>10916214
>>10916205
>>10916199
>>10916196
>>10916191
>>10916187
>>10916182
>>10916140
>>10916124
>>10916156
>>10916174
>>10916171
>>10916167
>>10916156
>>10916142
Easy on the weed bro. If you don't know, just use the internet.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1486229014230.webm, 3MiB, 640x360

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:58:13 No.10916265 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916257
>>10916250
>>10916255
NO U!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 17:59:33 No.10916269 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916249
>>10916243
>>10916242
>>10916236
This is why you need to stay in school. You are cringy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:02:30 No.10916279 Report

Quoted By: >>10916289

>>10915793
Did they forget to dry the harvest before they weighed it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:03:10 No.10916283 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916243
>>10916249
False. Learn yous some chemistry. Specifically how energy is being measured.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:04:18 No.10916289 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916279
>op is a fag
Miscanthus is close to the theoretical maximum efficiency at turning solar radiation into biomass,[m] and its water use efficiency is among the highest of any crop.[n] It has twice the water use efficiency of its fellow C4 plant maize, twice the efficiency as the C3 energy crop willow (Salix viminalis), and four times the efficiency as the C3 plant wheat. This combined efficiency makes miscanthus fields energy dense. Since miscanthus has an energy content of 18 GJ per dry tonne, the typical UK dry yield (winter harvest) of 11-14 tonnes per hectare produce 200-250 gigajoules of energy per hectare per year in that particular region. This compares favorably to maize (98 GJ), oil seed rape (25 GJ), and wheat/sugar beet (7-15 GJ),[p] underlining the differences between first and second generation bioenergy crops. In the USA, M. x giganteus has been shown to yield two times more than switchgrass.[5]

Hastings et al. note that «[f]ield trials have shown that for many locations in Europe M. x giganteus has the largest energy yield of all potential bioenergy crops in terms of net MJha ?1, and the highest energy?use efficiency (EUE), in terms of the energy cost of production, due to its relatively high yields and low inputs [...]»[6]. The main competitors yield wise is willow and poplar, grown in short rotation coppice (SRC) or short rotation forestry (SRF) plantations. Especially in the northern parts of Europe, willow and poplar can approach and sometimes exceed miscanthus winter yields in the same location.[q]

The miscanthus peak yield is reached at the end of summer but harvest is typically delayed until winter or early spring. Yield is roughly 33% lower at this point because of leaves drop, but the combustion quality is higher. Delayed harvest also allows nitrogen to move back into the rhizome for use by the plant in the following growing season.[r]

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:05:44 No.10916291 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916257
Fucker. I'm talking about the kind that grows on playgrounds.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Untitled-1_0005_nuclear.jpg, 75KiB, 1200x675

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:08:46 No.10916298 Report

Quoted By: >>10916316

>>10915793
Ignore the OP.

Nuclear is the best energy there is. Do not even research any form of renewable resources. There no reason at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:10:28 No.10916304 Report

Quoted By: >>10916314

>>10916088
>Exceeds the solar constant by 2x
It doesn't. It is like 5-8% of that. I think your conversion was off or something. Maybe forgetting "per hour" or something?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:14:00 No.10916314 Report

Quoted By: >>10916349 >>10916452

>>10916304
I just plugged a conversion. If you could point out my error that would be helpful.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=800GJ%2F%28ha*year%29+to+w%2F%28m%5E2%29

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:14:16 No.10916316 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916298

It's also like the fusion power of humanities: After so many decades and we haven't found a way to make them viable after all the bureaucracy and regulations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:14:34 No.10916317 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915793
testtttingggggggggg

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:23:06 No.10916349 Report

Quoted By: >>10916358

>>10916314
>>10916088
I think you are confusing how it is being measured. You are also going backwards. You are also not accounting for time. Months of sunshine goes into those plants. That's a great deal of time. Which is why your math is radically off. Solar energy hitting 1 square meter of land might be 1kw, but when you start stacking it over months of time, that's a huge amount of energy. Only a small % of it gets put into the plant, but since it is a huge amount of time...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:26:09 No.10916358 Report

Quoted By: >>10916362

>>10916349
I actually figured out where I went wrong and it is even dumber than either of us could ever imagine.
2.537 =/= 2,537

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1565757543372.webm, 2MiB, 226x360

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:27:53 No.10916362 Report

Quoted By: >>10916368

>>10916088
>>10916358
>200watt solar panel
>battery array gives out 6kw after it is charged over time
>Exceeds the solar constant by 6x
>Gee bill how come your mom lets you have two wieners?

Plants are a form of energy storage; batteries, per se. Of course they can store more energy in them, over a period of time, than the sun can produce in less time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:30:33 No.10916368 Report

Quoted By: >>10916390 >>10916408

>>10916362
I don't think you understand where I went wrong. The equation was correct but the analysis was flawed. They don't make 2x the energy that the sun can provide they make 0.2% of the energy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:34:50 No.10916390 Report

Quoted By: >>10916408 >>10916620

>>10916368
The sad part is that nobody checked my math before this and we instead just had an argument about how photosynthesis and fertilizers are magic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:39:23 No.10916403 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916257
This behavior.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:40:22 No.10916408 Report

Quoted By: >>10916421

>>10916368
>>10916390
Your math is flawed either way since you are literally comparing apples and oranges here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:45:17 No.10916421 Report

Quoted By: >>10916426

>>10916408
>Your math is flawed either way since you are literally comparing apples and oranges here.
If the units convert you can compare apples and oranges all you want.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:46:08 No.10916426 Report

Quoted By: >>10916436

>>10916421
watt isn't the same as watt-hour.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO shitposting intensifies.gif, 208KiB, 598x473

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:47:42 No.10916431 Report

Quoted By: >>10916437 >>10916443

>>10916088
Why are you trying to compare energy square area to energy hours?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:49:01 No.10916436 Report

Quoted By: >>10916444

>>10916426
GJ/(ha*year) is equivalent to kw/m^2

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:49:11 No.10916437 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916431
he's comparing a battery to a wall outlet

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:50:05 No.10916443 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916431
Yeah I forgot the year in the first equation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:50:11 No.10916444 Report

Quoted By: >>10916452 >>10918233

>>10916436
That isn't what is being done in >>10916088 There's no time factor in that post at all. You are trying to change it after the fact. You failed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:52:33 No.10916452 Report

Quoted By: >>10916461

>>10916444
OK, so I made a mistake when I wrote it out that doesn't make the math wrong. >>10916314

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:54:38 No.10916461 Report

Quoted By: >>10916474

>>10916452
It makes everything wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:59:19 No.10916474 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916461
>It makes everything wrong.
It doesn't make 800GJ/(ha*year) not equivalent to 2.537W/m^2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 19:48:41 No.10916620 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916390
My point with the fertilizer and water was that you have to subtract the energy used from the energy produced to get the net total

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 20:11:04 No.10916654 Report

Quoted By: >>10916800

who has read sustainable energy without the hot air by the Late great David JC Mackay formerly of cambridge university or watched his talks?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFosQtEqzSE

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 20:30:39 No.10916691 Report

Quoted By:

>>10915807
If you were going to try and go for the most efficient system you'd use agricultural byproduct to source your biofuel.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Pongamia Pinnatta.jpg, 322KiB, 768x1024

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 21:08:07 No.10916796 Report

Quoted By: >>10916935 >>10917895

>>10915793
>>10915838
Hey anons. I looked into miscanthus a few years ago as a supplement in coal fired power plants. Biodigesters can also reduce the plant matter into methane. I had problems in my area due to quarantine concerns and weed potential. These approval processes are a mess. Using electrically powered harvesting equipment may increase quoted efficiencies.

There is other stuff currently in development. Take a peek at Millettia pinnata. Pic related. The biggest issue is yield which is not yet properly understood. If they can get close to their 80kg per tree of oilseed this tree will be able to produce biodiesel at competitive prices. I'm giving this one away because somebody else is already developing the industry.

Algae is another option. This is my long term focus. I have ideas to enhance efficiencies however the money will need to be sourced elewhere first.

Grid power has limitations which reduce efficiency. Energy density for fuels like diesel is much higher than for batteries and produces less pollution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 21:10:21 No.10916800 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916654
I have now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 21:12:07 No.10916805 Report

Quoted By:

It's carbon neutral, even if we switched completely over to biofuel it wouldn't undo the damage that's already been done. We'd have to stop other activities that reduce carbon sequestration, just urbanization and deforestation etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 21:59:23 No.10916930 Report

Quoted By:

how far is torrefied biomass development?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 22:01:16 No.10916935 Report

Quoted By: >>10917055

>>10916796
one issue I'm curious about is non fossil fuel based sources of nitrogen fertiliser. do you know anything much about the field?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 22:46:56 No.10917018 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916171
Your professor is right.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 23:05:21 No.10917055 Report

Quoted By: >>10917078

>>10916935
A little. Right now we are throwing huge amounts of nitrates into the ocean where it does nothing. Recycling nitrates from human effluent is complicated by domestic chemical use as well as having the industrial effluent mixed in with residential efffluent.

The nitrogen issue can be solved with energy. Phosphates cannot afaik. So kudos to the gasanon who first brought up methane biodigesters re human waste.

We could modify a lot of technology if only we could afford it. Sometimes I wish communism had won.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 23:12:15 No.10917078 Report

Quoted By: >>10918008 >>10918012 >>10921867

>>10917055
there are upsides and downsides to communism
honestly even national socialism needs a reevaluation. the nazis as the boogeyman doesn't really answer important questions about social accountability.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 03:44:11 No.10917895 Report

Quoted By: >>10918335

>>10916796
which area did you trie to cultivate it?
Milettia pinnata is for biodiesel whilst miscanthus is for pellet production. kinda comparing apples and oranges
Anyway for rapeseed you get about 1300 liters of biodiesel per ha. What could you get at 80 kg per tree? I hope it's over 3000...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 04:34:40 No.10918008 Report

Quoted By: >>10918692

>>10917078
Not science or math or biotechnology.
Nazism only has war. Won't help for biofuels

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 04:36:47 No.10918012 Report

Quoted By: >>10918015 >>10918702 >>10921867

>>10917078
Nationalism is a meme that needs to die.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 04:38:16 No.10918015 Report

Quoted By: >>10918235

>>10918012
Then what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 06:29:43 No.10918233 Report

Quoted By: >>10918587

>>10916444
>no time factor
>W
wew lad

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 06:31:07 No.10918235 Report

Quoted By: >>10918412

>>10918015
Then we make it illegal to have children with someone who has a skin color within 1SD of themselves in order to defeat racism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 07:54:48 No.10918335 Report

Quoted By: >>10918417

>>10917895
I have looked at a lot of different things over the years. It wasn't just the difficulty importing rootstock. I chose to focus on clean coal instead. For a greater impact in less time. Eventually we could move into biomass fuels however the iter crew are insisting that fusion is just around the corner. We may just need a stopgap. One which is still competitive with what we are already using. One which can be decommissioned if or when fusion takes over.

As for yield... I ran some numbers off figures I found and it should be reasonable to produce 4,800L per ha. At 80kg per tree it would be substantially more than that figure. In a few more decades after they figure their genetics out... Right now yield is highly variable.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO IMG_7504.jpg, 44KiB, 578x390

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 08:59:23 No.10918412 Report

Quoted By:

>>10918235
Oy vey, dont let the goyim know.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 09:03:43 No.10918417 Report

Quoted By: >>10918483

>>10918335
Ok that is starting to look like smth.
Honestly i dont know why they operate rapeseed for biofuel.
1300 litres/ha.
Even if the product was as qualitative as crude oil that would yield 8 barrels and 450 dollars.
With 4800 we're getting somewhere.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 09:55:34 No.10918483 Report

Quoted By: >>10918711

>>10918417
It is much cheaper to produce and harvest a hectare of canola than a hectare of treeseeds. Maybe they can plant these trees in brasil where labour is cheaper.

Yield is not king. Profit margin is king.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1460588477809.jpg, 442KiB, 2000x1087

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 11:10:25 No.10918587 Report

Quoted By: >>10918589

>>10918233
>he doesn't know what watt-months are
Plants are not grown and harvested in a since watt-second. When you don't specify anything other than W then it is watt-second. Plants are batteries. They take the sunshine over the course of watt-months. Solar energy was a single watt-second time frame in >>10916088

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 11:11:27 No.10918589 Report

Quoted By:

>>10918587
>since
*single

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 11:23:38 No.10918596 Report

Quoted By: >>10918630

>>10915793
Biofuels are too inefficient to the point that they are more dangerous to Earth than fossil fuel as a mass alternative.

Nuclear is the best alternative but the greenJews are fudding it to death.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 11:48:01 No.10918630 Report

Quoted By: >>10918653 >>10918682

>>10918596
If we build a bunch of nuclear power plants now we won't be able to afford fusion plants in a couple decades.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 12:05:45 No.10918653 Report

Quoted By:

>>10918630
that's sci-fi

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 12:28:05 No.10918682 Report

Quoted By: >>10918717

>>10918630
But we can afford 32 billion in aid to a tiny middle eastern country about the size of New Jersey?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 12:35:45 No.10918692 Report

Quoted By:

>>10918008
I'm pretty sure the nazis had alternative fuel research programmes

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 57DBD523-C7F9-4AEC-B386-5E10218D (...).jpg, 33KiB, 400x342

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 12:41:39 No.10918702 Report

Quoted By: >>10918716 >>10921867

>>10918012
Smallest brain post I have seen in awhile. What you are asking for is a post fall of Rome world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 12:45:27 No.10918711 Report

Quoted By: >>10918766

>>10918483
Yes but the miscanthus is just a big grass.
At 800 GJ per year (which might be a bit of an overestimation) you get 758 million BTU which are traded at 2,16 dollars on the natural gas market, yielding 1637 dollars.
Similarly 800 GJ is the energy content of 36,13 tons of coal which trades at 48 dollars per ton, yielding 1734 dollars.
And nat gas traded as high as 4,7 dollars earlier this year whilst coal traded over 100 on the european market.
Thus a year round price of 2000-2500 can be expected.
This is almost twice the amount of money an hectare wheat land in france produces.
I think this comes close to being economically viable.

Global coal supply of 7.5 billion tonnes could be offset by harvesting 2.07 million km2 of miscanthus. Assuming similar conversion efficiency.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 12:48:24 No.10918716 Report

Quoted By: >>10918773 >>10921867

>>10918702
>What you are asking for is a post fall of Rome world.
Nice straw man you have there, would be a shame if something happened to it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 12:48:40 No.10918717 Report

Quoted By:

>>10918682
Oy vey, shut it down!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 13:15:59 No.10918766 Report

Quoted By:

>>10918711
I think you may find that the energy content of the miscanthus is much lower than coal and is much higher in silica which gunks up the furnace.

After harvesting you still need to pelletise which probably will require an additive as a binder which increases overheads.

It isn't as easy as planting grass and getting free energy. Somebody has to pay for these things. Best if you expect to have to pay for everything yourself.

Miscanthus may be suitable in some circumstances just not in mine. I am interested though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 13:20:05 No.10918773 Report

Quoted By: >>10921768 >>10921867

>>10918716
You are so dumb you think all cultures and iqs are the same and any difference is from poverty or oppression, it is a very dangerous and wrong opinion that only be held by people who led very sheltered lives, typically young adults and children, and people who spent too much time in academia.
Nationalism is the very base rock of organization in society, and it funds your colleges and 95% of all basic research done, and it is all based around the very basic principle of borders and shared pools of money going to citizens not non citizens, all from working stiffs who only buy into the system as long as certain tenets hold. And to undermine it can and will grind the excess said funds you use to a halt for a indigoexecutive long period of time till a new nation emerges.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Aug 2019 00:37:49 No.10920889 Report

Quoted By:

phosphorous will likely be the root of the next great crisis.
bitter wars will be fought for it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Aug 2019 09:07:14 No.10921768 Report

Quoted By:

>>10918773
Everything FEELS the same.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO derail.jpg, 449KiB, 800x912

Anonymous Tue 27 Aug 2019 10:22:53 No.10921867 Report

Quoted By:

>>10918773
>>10918716
>>10918702
>>10918012
>>10917078
Fuck off back to >>>/pol/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 27 Aug 2019 16:49:30 No.10922498 Report

Quoted By:

cane sugar?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches