Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fleebut

Another ethanol roadblock development

Recommended Posts

They may be making bio-diesel at about the same rate as ethanol... 1 crop, two fuels! ;D

 

That would great.. sell the Bio diesel back to the farmers to use for planting/harvesting ..Lowers the Farmer reliance on Oils product and helps temper the the anti corn ethanol rants of takes Oil to run that Farm equipment blah blah blah

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall seeing a  Tanker Truck  with Co2 I suspect that must have come from the Little Falls Minnesota Ethanol Plant.. I was heading that way and the Tanker was coming from that direction ...just a couple Miles away..

 

Anyways...just wondering out loud ..    There has to be  Market for It.. even if all the Plants do is cover there cost just seems to make more sense then sticking it in the ground..

 

Outlaw you know how big the Market is For Co2 and what it takes /costs to capture and store /transport can it be sold  at a profit ?

 

I do not have hard numbers for profit/loss on CO2 refrigerated value- but the market is approx $21-25 ton/ FOB producer for non-soft drink grade and i would have to assume that is at a small profit. I do not know the size of the market- I would have to assume if everyone got into it then prices would crash into unprofitable level.

 

For the folks that think it would create pollution in a limestone bed- ah no- at least not directly. Even when I used to spelunk (caving) we were aware our breath would dissolve formations in the cave due to the chemical reaction of CO2 with limestone. Tiny effect yet it has been documented in heavily traveled tourist caves. This is an acid being neutralized by a base. It was to be injected at 3,000 ft in depth. don't know if some would percolate upward. If so it in theory could dissolve limestone rock formation and destabilize such formation over time. The risk then could be; dropping perched water tables, opening up channels for natural gas/oil deposits to move into water, very very slight chance of minor weakening of the earth's crust (there is at least one very old currently stable fault line that runs east/west way over in the southern 1/3 of Indiana- affiliated with the old New Madrid Fault in Missouri). All these risks are very low- especially as compared to "Fracking" by oil/nat gas companies-- but the local geography will determine this risk. Thus the risk is not direct from "dirty CO2" (remember CO2 from fermentation is already near food grade--as opposed to CO2 from a coal fired electric plant) directly contaminating water/earth like at least one mindless posters said- but rather from other preexisting enviromental conditions which could be altered by rock degradation. This may not even be a factor in that area if earlier ice age glaciers have already crushed the rock formations making them porus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People breathe out emissions, so not to be scared.

 

You post we know nothing of sequestration....exactly and reason for the project. It was a fact finding demonstration science project. In comparison we know nothing much of global warming, either. So, is it best to pull the plug on man made solutions as these are untried, unproven, and to dangerous?

 

The best of science merely say growing evidence of global warming and if were wrong....we get healthier environment. But, if were right, it just to catastrophic of an outcome, just to big a change not to act. Problem is we have a long history of man made cures failing upon the environment....with horrible unforeseen problems and result in even bigger problems. This is the usual progress of cures. We get to full of ourselves and think science is faultless. EPA is about to launch a whole lot of man made cures, either down in a well or upon a tailpipe. Conventional wisdom usually wrong. Gong slower with the cures may prevent us from damaging the environment. It may buy us some time to actually better understand what were attempting.  So, I suggest to continue on with the experiment to better understand the process, but not to wholesale adapt. In fact to not wholesale adapt any expensive regulated solutions. You cross that bridge and you can phony up the cure is always needed as no evidence or proof that the regulators didn't in fact save the world. We have no strong empirical evidence. Both sides can claim the answer, so the regulators can claim perpetual need and power to control all economic activity. That's a slippery slope. We will regret the dictatorial power afforded to this regulation industry.

 

Limestone locks onto CO2 chemically. Remember those artificial CO2 trees proposed? They soaked up incredible amount of the gas. Just putting a few hundred thousand of these trees sprinkled about could sequester all man man CO2. A very cost effective solution. The limestone could easily be buried.

 

If for nothing else, if in the rare event these scientist actually accurate and we discover were sliding into the abyss, this technology becomes critical to survival. We better have solutions at the ready as science sooner or later gets it right.

 

That's not to say we need to choose now. It's either fire extinguishers or sequestration make up your mind...now.  I do have a problem with the logic of flaming the fears of global warming then trivializing viable solutions. All solutions except for their desired solution. Makes me suspect they extorting science for desires and wants. An means to an end. Their desired path. 

 

The community exploited by activist pretending and jacking up concerns. A small group over represented that fanned the flames for fear mongering. IOWs typical hack operation. The company was confused and stated they are environmental company and acting in best interest of community. The company did not call lunatic....they just shook their head in amazement and said they will relocate. 

 

Well, geologically speaking, the earth crust breaking apart from CO2 pumping is child's play science evaluation compared to calculating global warming. So, again if you believe and I believe the evidence is so thin is comes down to belief, you better understand the solutions. Best to understand the technology than make assumptions.  Assumptions should be tempered with facts.  Especially something as complex as global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will regret the dictatorial power afforded to this regulation industry.

 

 

 

Umm No we wont.... No one regrets the dictorial power of Regulating the Steel Mills the 1970's ..no one regrets the regulation in the clean waters acts that cleaned major Cities rivers all over the United States ..no one regrets any of these regulations except Business because it costs them money to make the investments

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so the jobs go to China.  I don't like either outcome--either polluted rivers or the unemployment.  Just stating a fact for consideration.  I'll go swim in our unpolluted river now.  It's a constant conundrum.  And yet I wouldn't go swim in a Chinese river...  :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

    Hiding the CO underground is not a solution just a way for the Company to get rid of it

 

 

That's like sweeping dirt under the rug, IMO. ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're hung up upon thinking (falsely) that CO2 is a pollutant. Meaning to malign the inert gas as a pollutant. It's not. It's a sanitary harmless gas we all exhale. It is pure and natural. A gas the plant kingdom, algae, and most of the natural biological needs to survive.  These organisms utilizes C02 as we use Oxygen. They breath in CO2 and exhale oxygen. If you double or triple the CO2 mix upon your plant kingdom you will invigorate the plants to a 30% gain in growth. So, the simple molecule not the devil nor a dangerous pollutant.  It's natural and not man made or synthetic. Oil doesn't pollute the planet with toxic CO2. Nothing we should fear if ever the gas breaks through to the surface of deep well deposit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As CO2 increases, so does the global temp and the acidity of the ocean.

 

Sequestering CO2 takes energy, and nearly all energy use creates more CO2.

 

No-one has proven that sequestered CO2 is going to stay put.

 

If the CO2 is just going to escape later, what have we gained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fleebut makes no difference if it isnt "toxic" or not.. You are missing the point.. whether it is or isnt makes no difference on the REALITY of Public perception..

 

PUBLIC perception is that it isnt a good thing to pipe large amounts of co2 underground.. (and in the long run they may very well be right..or maybe in the long run they are wrong..makes no diference)

 

I dont believe there is solid evidence either..but makes no difference either

 

The point is instead of fighting that perception...

 

Ethanol should considered / should look at maybe the best path to approval for their Plants is to work with the Community and local "greenies"  .. on solutions that would benefit the Ethanol Company as well as Community concerns .. selling the CO2 ..like some plants already do.. dozens of different products that I found in just a few minutes of searching...

 

I think that's something that ethanol should look at .. Hiring a Green Firm.. to help guide them .. to work with local communities as a Plant is seeking permits and goes through the public City Council meetinsg etc..

 

 

Goodwill.. genuine goodwill clear a lot more path than arguing with communities ethanol wants to move into...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In cold climates that are miles from fresh vegetables I would like to see independent large greenhouse operations co-locate with ethanol plants to utilize the low grade waste heat from fermentation and CO2 from fermentation to both warm the greenhouse operations and supercharge the plant growth. This has got to be better than energy intense trucking of vegetables from California who also uses very scarce water. This has been done before by ADM who grew at least hydroponic tomatos- likely far more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...