• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Solar Power, now!

It's actually around 40% (eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/France/Background.html).

To the car guys: What about ethanol made from switchgrass? I read an article (can't find it now) where a professor in GA was able to produce 4x more ethanol than using sugar cane and almost 10x more than ethanol made from corn per sq acre.

Keep the info coming!

I now live in an emissions exempt area, and no longer have to use the muscle car as a daily driver. I am free to dork around with alt fuels till the cows come home. I'm currently tuned for "Farm-O-Hol" which is questionable consistency at best, but its a five minute job to change carb jets and I just bought an in dash timing kit.
 
Has anyone seen this? I haven't had a chance to really dig into their site, but the company I work for is doing some business for them, and they're supposed to be launching some product in 2008.
 
My grievance with environmental blogs that push wind and solar so heavily is that none of them seem to be talking seriously about intermittency and realistic integration into grids. Solar is obviously intermittent on a daily basis while wind is better, but certainly far from reliable even in the best areas. Short of a miracle in energy storage neither can provide more than a fraction of total capacity unless you like the idea of regular blackouts. Currently many utilities are already heavily reliant on natural gas peaker plants, which is unsustainable unless vast new fields of gas are discovered in North America or liquefied transportation becomes inexpensive.

The refusal to talk about nuclear power in green circles is only condemning us to far less responsible, breakneck nuclear program down the road if climate change is real and burning more coal becomes impossible. Hydro power is developed to full potential while geothermal expansion is still a pipe dream. We need real solutions sooner rather than later and nuclear is the best option we have unfortunately. Wind can play a major role in rural areas on the high plains, mountain states and other areas with reliable wind patterns but in the national picture it will remain a fractional player. I like the idea of wind expansion now though to prevent more coal fired plants from being built while we wait for a President and markets to start talking seriously about the long term picture.

A nation wide network of solar and wind farms might work to address the issue of intermittency, but that would require high levels of redundancy, inflating cost even more and requiring a vast new infrastructure for transmission across the nation. You would also lose a great deal of efficiency transmitting power potentially thousands of miles. I don't see politicians or markets pushing a program that could triple or quadruple cost over fossil fuels, it doesn't make sense by any standard outside of idealistic blogs.
 
Last edited:
My grievance with environmental blogs that push wind and solar so heavily is that none of them seem to be talking seriously about intermittency and realistic integration into grids. Solar is obviously intermittent on a daily basis while wind is better, but certainly far from reliable even in the best areas. Short of a miracle in energy storage neither can provide more than a fraction of total capacity unless you like the idea of regular blackouts. Currently many utilities are already heavily reliant on natural gas peaker plants, which is unsustainable unless vast new fields of gas are discovered in North America or liquefied transportation becomes inexpensive.

It's a known issue, and it's being worked on, they aren't just ignoring it. Read the New Scientist for more info. (can't show it cause it's subscribers only :()
 
This is the same old American socialist utopian nonsense. Someone decides that something is beneficial, but for some reason the market is not providing it. What to do? Why, use someone else's money to do it for you. Never mind that the entrepreneurs who know how to get things done have decided that there are better ways to invest resources. Never mind that the capital the government needs to help in this enterprise is taken from taxpayers at the point of a gun.

Ugh. Haven't the last 90 years taught us anything??

The last 90 years have taught us many things. For instance, starting about fifty years ago money began to be taken at the point of the gun to fund the Advanced Research Projects Agency (which is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense no less, although it's a civilian agency). That organization would go on to do such things as INVENT THE INTERNET. So yeah, we've learned a lot.
 
To the car guys: What about ethanol made from switchgrass? I read an article (can't find it now) where a professor in GA was able to produce 4x more ethanol than using sugar cane and almost 10x more than ethanol made from corn per sq acre.

Probably cellulosic ethanol (that is, turning cellulose into ethanol rather than sugar into ethanol). Switchgrass is hardly the only winner over current corn/sugar cane methods, IF you can make it from cellulose. Get that working, and you can use lawn clippings and sawdust if you want. But being able to do it in a lab is hardly the same thing as being able to do it economically on an industrial scale. And nobody's got that working yet, though there are efforts underway. I wish them luck, and it will probably work eventually, but eventually might be decades away.
 
so for right now does that mean switchgrass takes regular dino gas to make into alcohol quickly?
 
Last edited:
so for right now does that mean switchgrass takes regular dino gas to make into alcohol quickly?

There's more than one way to do it, but right now the costs are still too high and conversion efficiencies too low.

I made a slight error earlier, though. Currently with corn, it's mostly starch, not sugar, which gets converted. That's still an easier process right now than cellulose, but there's more room for improvements with cellulose than for starch and sugar, and more possible sources (switchgrass, wood chips, hemp, lawn clippings, etc), if those efficiency gains can be made.
 
There's more than one way to do it, but right now the costs are still too high and conversion efficiencies too low.

I made a slight error earlier, though. Currently with corn, it's mostly starch, not sugar, which gets converted. That's still an easier process right now than cellulose, but there's more room for improvements with cellulose than for starch and sugar, and more possible sources (switchgrass, wood chips, hemp, lawn clippings, etc), if those efficiency gains can be made.
I'm beginning to get disappointed by the ethanol crowd. Using food for fuel was never a good idea, and now the promise of using these more effective methods hasn't been brought forth.

Maybe later...
 
I'm used to producing ethanol (low test brewing) and can be quite efficient if you are not brewinng for taste to brew from any starchy material, as long as it is consistant you can run a chain easily, the problem is although it is a renewable source as far as material goes, it is one hell of a CO2 producer both in the fermentation process and combustion (eta based on J/kg yield for equivelant energy release from Oil).

Distillation could be achieved by solar furnace or similar, reducing the need for High potency initial ferms, as distallation would technically be econmically Free (apart from the plant the manpower etc)

you would also have the problem of all those dead yeast cells, now unless the world desires an overwhelming urge for Marmite / Twiglets / MSG then you are going to have tonnes of autolysing yeast, I suppose you could possibly immobilise the yeast and ferment that way but that would be incredibly inneficient.

Spent Grist (whatever it's form) could be used in many forms, if there is remaining cellulose then it could be used in fibre production, if it is just protein slurry then rendered to bulk out energy rich foods in animal feed etc.

If we could engineer a yeast cell with a good cellulase production, as well as good general properties, this would be a good start, however I believe other than Airports or static fleets on fixed sites that ethanol will catch on, however a generally worthwhile idea it is.

Spend the money earmarked for solar tidal and Bio on a few decent Fission plants, then plough the money into fusion research (this goes for the UK too :p).
 
Last edited:
If spending of taxes is "at the point of a gun", it seems to me an argument that a democratic process is not sufficient to justify the taxation and expenditure... which translates into an argument that no public money should be collected or spent on any project without unanimous consent of those the money was taxed from.

For those "Point of a gun" people... is this what you advocate?
 
Last edited:
I don't think you could do that for lack of Indium-Tin-Oxide. Translucent sheets of graphene may be a suitable replacement, but it's not production ready tech yet.
 
I like solar, I wish american counties (not the fed govt) would start requiring that houses of a certain size (aka, mcmansions) be built with 8kw solar panels on the roof (20k cost currently).

Most homes can heat/cool during the day while the adults are at work off 8kw and still feed energy back into the grid. This has a strategic importance in addition to green concerns.
 
I like solar, I wish american counties (not the fed govt) would start requiring that houses of a certain size (aka, mcmansions) be built with 8kw solar panels on the roof (20k cost currently).

Most homes can heat/cool during the day while the adults are at work off 8kw and still feed energy back into the grid. This has a strategic importance in addition to green concerns.

The problem with that is that it's unreliable. You can shear the peaks off a little so you do not have to use expensive gas-powered peaking plants as much. But it's not good baseload without expensive storage systems(or very large concentrating solar thermal that can store heat in a reservoir).
 
Im about to buy a house off the grid. The neighbors all have solar, but I dont know how its going to be, Im quite concerned, but its a hell of a lot better than living in the parking lot of town. Luckily Im in Arizona, so there is some sun around.

The well has its own solar system, and allegedly those are plenty reliable. The water heater is solar. My main concern is the solar electric and batteries. I need enough power to have a few computers running and some pretty high powered audio power amps, late into the night.
 
I hate to break it to ya, but solar power is not sufficient to supply electricity grids the size of a state. The technology has a few huge problems, namely that it's quite inefficient at actually capturing the energy in sunlight, that it requires a lot of maintenance relative to the electricity generated, that it can only work half the time to begin with, assuming it's always sunny during the daytime, and that it is incapable of increasing its energy generation on the fly to meet increased demand on the grid. The only technologies which are really capable of sustaining baseload electricity are fossil fuels, hydroelectric, and nuclear power.

The obvious environmentally friendly choice is nuclear. It's cleaner than solar power in terms of CO2 emissions; in fact, there's hardly any pollution at all from a nuclear power plant. There's minimal waste, especially compared to the alternatives, and nuclear waste can be minimized through use of fast breeder reactors and development of nuclear waste recycling technology. And nuclear power plants are actually a lot safer than most environmentalists are lead to believe.

While there's certainly a place for things like solar and wind to supplement the electricity grid, it seems that if we really want to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels (which I believe is imperative for our planet), then our future is going to have to be a nuclear one. I just don't understand why so many environmentalists are opposed to nuclear power. It's extremely safe, extremely powerful, and extremely friendly to the environment.

http://cravenspowertosavetheworld.com
http://www.nei.org
http://www.ecolo.org
 
Last edited:
It is AWFUL! I can lose up to 5 degrees of total timing in my car running that junk, it just pings mercilessly, or I can run quite a bit richer, losing fuel mileage...
That is because you aren't running the correct air-fuel ratio for that blend of fuel. You will have to add more fuel and then you will be able to add timing. Doing so will result in more torque and since E85 is less expensive this will almost make up for decreased fuel mileage. Besides, it beats running 110 octane gasoline, which is incidentally around the same octane rating as E85.
 

Back
Top Bottom