Can this poisonous weed be the biofuel that save us all?
Almost overnight, the unloved Jatropha curcushas become an agricultural and economic celebrity, with the discovery that it may be the ideal biofuel crop, an alternative to fossil fuels for a world dangerously dependent on oil supplies and deeply alarmed by the effects of global warming.
The hardy jatropha, resilient to pests and resistant to drought, produces seeds with up to 40 per cent oil content. When the seeds are crushed, the resulting jatropha oil can be burnt in a standard diesel car, while the residue can also be processed into biomass to power electricity plants.
Doesn't it seem that a reduction in consumption is the only solution until a truly viable option is found?
People will grow more bio-fuel then food, however, when food becomes more expensive (corn is up 35% this year apparently in some countries) it'll even itself out. Plus, corn isn't meant to be eaten by humans. There's a reason why it cannot be digested by our immune system. Even if it was, there are better vegetables out there for you. The best biofuel is used vegetable oils. You have to do it yourself, however it doesn't take a long time. It takes a long time for vegetable oils to decompose apparently.
The biggest problem is not the government. The biggest problem is humanities dependance on fossif fuels. No mater how you try to twist this reality eventually you must come to realize that it (oil) is a finite resource (along with the very expensive metals in catalytic converters). We humans can choose to blow our fossil fuel wad now, and suffer the consequences later, or manage our resources a little better.
As for corn not being food: Ask Italians about polenta, Brazilians about angu, in, the Romanians about mămăligă, Southerners about grits or Africans about sadza, nshima, ugali or mealie pap. And oh yeah, and don't forget about Mexicans or all Central Americans. And if you are from Southern Ontario you could ask them about all the corn they have been eating this summer. And how exactly "it'll even things out" as food gets more expensive you are going to have to explain more clearly.
In fact, America's obeseity epidemic can be linked to corn consumption in the form of high fructose corn syrup.
try engaging some civility.
Bio-fuels are frequently touted as being "the answer". As others have alluded, you really need to look at the efficiency of production, the amount of land (and chemical fertililer, tractor/truck fuel, &c.) they require, and the impact on the rest of the economy. Corn IS a stupid thing to burn. It's a lot better suited for eating, but the U.S. production of Ethanol is both virtually mandated (in the form of a rules on fuel oxygenate %), lots of stupid subsidies, and import tariffs on sugar. Corn based fuel is a loser, but is politically popular because of political influence of argribusiness giants like ADM and the corn lobby. Anything that can't compete on its own is a costly diversion.
So what is better? Well, maybe some things like cellulosic ethanol produced from switchgrass and other fast regrow, low input crops. But that depends on the development of (cheap) enzymnes that can convert the "mash" quickly. Time will tell, but government intervention is not the answer.
Personally, I'd like to see bio-fuel research aim at diesel substitutes. The compression-ignition (i.e. Diesel) cycle is a lot more thermodynamically efficient to begin with. At least these jatropha seeds are using the right combustion cycle... Can't comment more on them yet...
What else can be done? Well, the goverments of the world can stop ratcheting up ridiculous safety standards. Cars today weigh FAR more than they should and 80% of that is because governments and the insurance lobby expect them to be crashproof tanks. It's absurd. My little 2005 Subaru Impreza weighs 4200 lb (2000 kg) ! That's almost double what it should! Get cars on a diet and fuel ecomony will go way up. In teh words of Colin Chapman (Lotus founder) " Add lightness! "
One more thing on a technical note... Catalytic converters do NOTHING to reduce CO2!!! Catalytic converters convert hydrocarbon, carbon MONOXIDE, and the varied oxides of nitrogen (NOx) into water vapor and carbon DIOXIDE. The better the catalyst, the closer the combustion products are to pure CO2 and H2O. If you believe CO2 makes the climate warmer, you need to burn less fuel, not have a better catalyst! I'll restate it for "jc" -- that 20 year old car that got 35 mpg is a WHOLE LOT BETTER for global warming (assuming you believe in it) than your super duper low emission new 25 mpg one. Greenies need to learn their facts before talking silliness.
Straight talk from Sid.
Civility? Like spelling someone's name correctly?
will you marry me?
No - seriously. The yawning chasm between vandoo's simplistic sheep-think and your concise summary of the issue illustrates how well most people understand bio-fuels and related matters.
But given the choice I'd rather be driving around in a safe, heavy air-bagged tank than one of those plastic Euro-weenie 2 person things that look like student-designed concept cars of the dystopian future, thank you very much...
typo = a lack of civility?
"Simplistic sheep think" Why not expand and explain where I have gone wrong rather than simply spewing insults from behind a keyboard?
Sid
please forgive me if in my simple sheep mind I have simplified the matter.
Wouldn't the global rate of oil consumption require massive amounts of arible land be dedicated to fuel crops? Even with a wholesale conversion of personal vehicles to diesel subtitute engines?
More elequent than me:
"It is in our best interest to preemptively embark on a revolutionary change that will lead us away from oil dependency rather than drag our feet and suffer the ramifications of becoming growingly dependent on a diminishing resource."
http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html
Where were we? Biofuel seeds. By all means. let's diversify the energy sources. If it doesn't pan out without subsidies or trade restrictions and all that nonsense then so be it. Maybe Jatropha fuel won't be going in your vehicle engine at all, but may find a niche as the best fuel for some other use. Perhaps in the future there might be micro-refineries that enable, say, certain size farms to economically devote some of their land to grow their own fuel. Fuel that doesn't have to be transported any further than down a pipe from the farm refinery to the farm vehicle shed.
Yes, any of the bio-fuels that are so "hot" these days would require a LOT of land be devoted to their production. Some of them (like corn for ethanol) are a lot worse than others, though. These are complete dead-ends and aren't worth wasting time, effort, and $ on. The problem with government tinkering in the form of subsidies and tariffs is that it sends people off working on losers. If free market forces are left to their own, the best solution(s) will win.
And that is what I was getting at with regard to vehicle mass. The gov't has imposed so many regulations that cars have gotten very heavy which KILLS fuel economy. People should be free to choose whatever car they want. A cheap, light fuel sipping one or a large, heavy, crashproof one that sucks gas like mad. Let the market decide.
And no, diesels are not a savior, but the fuel efficiency advantage of the Diesel Cycle over the Otto Cycle is undisputed. It's time for the U.S. gov't (and California which has their own standards and largely drives the boat) to end their bias against diesels. For large fuel chugging vehicles like SUVs and Pickups, the availability of common rail diesel powertrains would be an awesome option.
Pax teum.
I am not interested in a nice head nodding conversation. But polite? Why not? We can disagree to our core and have great conversations doing it. People resort to insults in online situations when they most likely would not do so face to face.
My reference to polenta was simply a responce to JC's statment concerning corn: "corn isn’t meant to be eaten by humans. There’s a reason why it cannot be digested by our immune system."
I supose my overly dramatic response was unwarented, but I was making a point.
While you feel that my refrence to HFCS was made from a soapbox, I vew it simply as fact. HFCS comes from corn and is eaten, digested and matabolized by humans. North Americans consume massive amounts of the stuff. Calories + sedintary lifestyle= Fat. (Too simplistic?)
If you want argue that HFCS is not a major contributing factor to obesity. By all means please do.
This is from the neatoroma post (above)
"...with the discovery that it may be the ideal biofuel crop, an alternative to fossil fuels for a world dangerously dependent on oil supplies."
My only argument is that biofuels, in all their varied forms and abillity to fill niches, cannot REPLACE oil at current rates of consumption for the reasons I stated above. Large scale reliance on biofuels is not viable.
Beyond that, I agree whole-hartedly with your last paragraph.
Re: Diesel engines. If they're so great then why do they stink so much, release more soot and particulate than regular gasoline and cause engines to be noisier?
If you've spent any time in a country like England which seems to adore diesel fuel then try taking a day trip to London, then at the end of the day (sorry for the icky description) blow your nose to find nasty black residue in your Kleenex.
The diesel engines you are looking at are the old technology indirect injection ones. Modern common rail direct injection diesels used in current passenger vehicles are a WHOLLY different animal entirely. The NOx emissions are slightly higher than gasoline engines, but the hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide are much better. With particulate traps and NOx aftertreatment, they have much better emissions than the toughest Federal standards. CO2 (if you believe in global warming) and fuel economy are better as well and the engines have much better torque than gasoline engines.
As for the noise issue with old-tech diesels, that comes from very high rates of combustion; electronic injection on modern engines allows the fuel pulse to be metered out more slowly, "rate shaping" the combustion. Works good! On common rail engines with electronic injection noise has been 90% improved -- you'd probably have to put the hood up to notice it's a diesel.
Modern automotive diesels produced in Europe are very nice engines with gobs of torque, good emissions, and excellent fuel economy. I wouldn't put on in a pure sports car like a Porsche (not quite as high revving as an Otto engine), but for even sporty sedans like Mercedes and BMW they are excellent. The key is common rail direct injection. Except for the few diesels sold by Mercedes and VW in the US (well, 45 states of the US), the rest of US Diesels (pickups and big trucks) are old tech and not too impressive. If you stuck one of the modern diesels in a very light car like a Honda Insight (throwing out the stupid hybrid powertrain), you'd wind up with a lighter, cheaper, better performing, and handling car that gets comparable fuel economy. A side benefit of diesels is that they are relatively easy to run on all kinds of kooky bio-fuels like this bean juice. The Diesel cycle is a lot less fussy than the Otto cycle as to fuel properties. That doesn't mean biofuels are "the answer", but the diesel cycle is more efficient to start with and more amenable to alternate fuels -- it's a better place to start.
Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12496-forget-biofuels--burn-oil-and-plant-forests-instead.html