Most biofuels are not 'green', researchers show

Sep 24, 2012
Most biofuels are not 'green', researchers show
Credit: iStock-Foto

(Phys.org)—First tops, then flops. That is one way of summing up the history of biofuels so far. A new study led by Empa gives an up-to-date picture of the ecobalance of various biofuels and their production processes. Only a few are overall more environmentally friendly than petrol.

In recent years, the demand for supposedly environmentally friendly biofuels has increased significantly worldwide; on the one hand, this has resulted in the increased cultivation of so-called energy plants and, on the other hand, innovative production methods for the second generation of biofuels have been developed. Parallel to this, ecobalance experts have refined and developed methods for . Since biofuels stem predominantly from , the, in part, controversial discussion about their revolves principally around whether the production of biofuels is defensible from an ecological viewpoint or whether there are possible negative effects, for example on the supply of foodstuff in times of drought, or whether eutrophication of arable land occurs.

In order to be able to give a well-informed response, Empa, on behalf of the Department of Energy (BFA) and in collaboration with the research institute Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon (ART), and the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), has updated the ecobalance of numerous biofuels, including their production chains. Compared with the first worldwide ecobalance study of its kind in 2007, also carried out by Empa, the team, led by Empa researcher Rainer Zah, included both innovative energy plants and and also updated assessment methods.

Overview of the diversity of environmental effects (ILCD-environmental indicators).

Fewer greenhouse gases – and thus a different environmental impact

However, despite a more extensive data set and up-to-date methods, Empa comes to the same conclusion as the study in 2007: many biofuels based on agricultural products indeed do help to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, but lead to other environmental pollution, such as too much acid in the soil and polluted (over-fertilised) lakes and rivers. "Most biofuels therefore just deflect the environmental impact: fewer greenhouse gases, thus more growth-related pollution for land used for agriculture", says Zah. This results in only a few biofuels having an overall better ecobalance than petrol, especially biogas from residues and waste materials, which – depending on the source material – impact on the environment up to half as much as petrol. And within the biofuel group, ethanol-based fuels tend to have a better ecobalance than those with an oil base; however, the results are very much dependent on the individual method of manufacture and the technology.

Development of greenhouse gas emissions and the aggregated environmental impact (Swiss pollution points, UBP) of selected biofuels from 2007 to 2012.

New findings on the effect of biofuels on greenhouse gases

However, the new methodology also allowed Zah and his colleagues to highlight the "weaknesses" of the earlier study. The researchers in 2007 underestimated the effects of changes to natural areas on the greenhouse gas balance, for example the deforestation of the rain forest. The current study now shows that biofuels from deforested areas usually emit more than fossil fuels. This also applies to indirect land usage changes if existing agricultural land is used for the first time for biofuel production and, as a consequence, forested areas have to be cleared in order to maintain the existing foodstuff or animal feed production.

On the other hand, positive effects can be achieved if energy plant cultivation increases the carbon content of the soil, for example via the cultivation of oil palms on unused grazing land in Columbia or via jatropha plantations in India and eastern Africa, making deserted land arable again. "Despite this, you can't speak in general terms of Jatropha as being a 'wonder plant', as its ecobalance is very much dependent on the agricultural practices at the site in question and the land's previous use", says Zah. Each (new) biofuel must therefore be examined separately and in detail.

What should be heeded in terms of biofuel production?

Although the devil is in the detail, the new studies make it possible to make some general recommendations:

  • Clearing woodland and bush areas in order to develop energy plants is to be avoided; this worsens the greenhouse gas balance considerably, which has a distinctly greater impact on the environment.
  • If agricultural land is used for production, indirect change of land use should be avoided as far as possible, for example, by making it compulsory to provide evidence that any displaced production does not have indirect effects as a result of intensification.
  • The use of land and forestry residues such as straw, garden and timber waste for energy purposes is advantageous, but only if these are not used in other ways or if their extraction from their natural cycle does not reduce the fertility of the soil and the bio-diversity.

Explore further: Shedding light on solar power

Related Stories

Kenya biofuel project opposed

Mar 23, 2011

Environmental goups Wednesday protested an expansive project to grow jatropha in Kenya for biofuels, arguing that such production would emit more carbon than fossil fuels.

Better plants for biofuels

May 02, 2012

An article in F1000 Biology Reports published today argues that recent advances in knowledge mean that plant-derived biofuels could meet about 30% of the global demand for liquid transportation fuels, drastically reducing the am ...

Current biofuels policies are unethical, says UK report

Apr 13, 2011

Current UK and European policies on biofuels encourage unethical practices, says a report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics today following an 18-month inquiry. Policies such as the European Renewable Energy Directive ...

Biofuels, like politics, are local

Feb 13, 2009

Field work and computer simulations in Michigan and Wisconsin are helping biofuels researchers understand the basics of getting home-grown energy from the field to consumers. Preliminary results presented today suggest that ...

Recommended for you

Audi to develop Tesla Model S all-electric rival

44 minutes ago

The Tesla Model S has a rival. Audi is to develop all-electric family car. This is to be a family car that will offer an all-electric range of 280 miles (450 kilometers), according to Auto Express, which ...

A green data center with an autonomous power supply

6 hours ago

A new data center in the United States is generating electricity for its servers entirely from renewable sources, converting biogas from a sewage treatment plant into electricity and water. Siemens implemented ...

Can we create an energy efficient Internet?

7 hours ago

With the number of Internet connected devices rapidly increasing, researchers from Melbourne are starting a new research program to reduce energy consumption of such devices.

Shedding light on solar power

Nov 27, 2014

Everyone wants to save energy, but not everyone knows where to start. Grid Resources, a startup based out of the Centre for Urban Energy's iCUE incubator, is developing a new website that seeks to help homeowners ...

Energy transition project moves into its second phase

Nov 27, 2014

Siemens is studying new concepts for optimizing the cost-effectiveness and technical performance of energy systems with distributed and fluctuating electricity production. The associated IRENE research project ...

User comments : 37

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 24, 2012
This entire thing could be solved, eventually, with automated driving and an electric rail, just like toy electric cars (but I would suggest an over-head rail system.

You would need minimum batteries compared to existing electric vehicles since it's constantly being charged as you drive. The engine runs on the rail power directly when available, and stores the excess in the batteries. You put put the rails on interstate highways and the largest state and local highways, which would be sufficient to power autos and even potentially SEMI TRUCKS(The real kicker, which is inconceivable through batteries alone).

And thus, you can power an entire civilization through 85% efficient electric engins, rather than 30% peak efficient/20% average efficient combustion engines.

The electricity can come from more wind and solar power.

there is no damned reason this wouldn't be "doable," though it would require significant tax revenues for the initial installation; governments usually make roads...
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2012
The above solution would abolish biofuels and petroleum AND solve the following problems for electric autos:

1, no immediate need for "ultra-efficient battery," ergo cheaper autos.

2, "very long road trip," no longer a problem, costs less than Gas.

3, Even the Trucking Industry could go electric without wasting half of cargo space on batteries.

Otherwise, without some sort of infrastructure, the trucking industry is going to go BUST whenever petroleum becomes too rare/expensive to make affordable diesel.

4, You don't need the rails on "every" road. Only "major" roads, because that would be enough to charge the autos.

5, Billing for power could be handled by a power meter, as simple as an odometer, and transmitter with an automated credit or electronic billing system for each district. GPS can track the district, parish/county, state, or federal road you're on and pay the appropriate power company for the "energy" you've used on the road.

We can dream, can't we?!
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2012
My ideas are radically advanced and absurdly simple at the same time, at least simple in concept. The complexity is high, but the theoretical gains in the energy efficiency of transportation over the long term would be enormous.

Also, fewer people drive at night, so if you had huge arrays of solar power, enough heat energy could be stored for the over night use.

We could get the majority of power from the Sun and wind, and use nuclear only as a backup or to fill in gaps in problematic locations.

We're talking nearly zero carbon footprint over the long term.

We could stop retarded biofuels growth, and return to using all farm land for food production, and get back to mid-1990's food costs.

Who wants a 3-piece white chicken dinner, with a small side, a biscuit, and a drink for $3.99 to be reality again? I sure as hell do.

With these changes it just might be possible to get down to $4.99 anyway.

LONG TERM system energy costs would be like 1/3rd of gasoline and diesel with NO CO2...
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2012
Here's another thing.

If solar thermal power plants can get 723f STEAM for power generation, why can't restaurants put a passive solar heat collector with an oil and a heat exchanger and power their cooking on clear days by using the Sun?

1, avoids the dangers of direct solar cooking with mirrors or fresnel lenses.

2, maintains most of the existing internal workings of the building.

3, can be hybridized with the existing gas or electric power systems to handle night time and cloudy days.

4, Does not need 723f temperatues, so it will be easier than electricity power by using the heat directly for cooking. We boil at 212f or a few degrees hotter for a rolling boil. We fry and bake usually at 350 to 450 degrees, far below what a vacuum tube and a back mirror can generate.

5, a roof top of a 20m by 20m restaurant is 400m^2. Multiple that by 90% of solar constant (at ground level,) and that's about what you can get with vacuum insulated solar collectors for direct heating.

...cont..
Lurker2358
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 24, 2012
So continuing the above solution, 400m^2 * 1000w/m^2 * 0.9 efficiency = 360,000watts or 360kilowatts of heat...

..during the day...

Cut that in half for maintenance access and wasted space, and you've still got 180kw at peak.

You can probably get this around 6 or 7 hours per day...

... for many fast food chains this is their peak business hours.

They could even run their lights on a small steam electric generator with the excess heat, and use a solar heat pump for the climate controls with all of the excess energy.

Ya think we're doing EVERYTHING about as wrong as we possibly can on energy?

Remember, direct heating for things like cooking is about 80 to 90% efficient if you have highly insulated collectors, and nothing beats vacuum insulated collectors for direct heating.

Imagine if all restaurants could cut their energy bills by 2/3rds using passive solar systems. Remember A/C and heating, a.k.a. "climate control" is a big part of restaurant costs too, and this solves both...
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2012
My ideas are worth millions, hell maybe even billions, PER INDUSTRY in some cases.

I should be working for a think tank for an engineering firm doing nothing but finding new applications for existing technologies.

What we have been doing for decades is so primitive, clumsy, dirty, and wasteful it hurts my brain just to think about it.

"I'd put my money on solar energy...I hope we don't have to wait till oil and coal run out before we tackle that." Thomas Edison, in conversation with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone, March 1931.

See below, the next quote doesn't fit.

THOMAS EDISON, one of the greatest inventors in history; mr. lightbulb and mr. electricity, wanted to develop solar asap.

See below for another quote.
Lurker2358
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2012
"The earliest known record of the direct conversion of solar radiation into mechanical power belongs to Auguste Mouchout, a mathematics instructor at the Lyce de Tours. Mouchout began his solar work in 1860 after expressing grave concerns about his country's dependence on coal. "It would be prudent and wise not to fall asleep regarding this quasi-security," he wrote. "Eventually industry will no longer find in Europe the resources to satisfy its prodigious expansion. Coal will undoubtedly be used up. What will industry do then?" By the following year he was granted the first patent for a motor running on solar power and continued to improve his design until about 1880."

Source for both quotes is on another forum, though admittedly this particular Edison quote was not verified there..

http://message.sn...?t=31707
Lurker2358
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2012
We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence around our house for fuel when we should be using Nature's inexhaustible sources of energy — sun, wind and tide. ... I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.
In conversation with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone (1931); as quoted in Uncommon Friends : Life with Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, Alexis Carrel & Charles Lindbergh (1987) by James Newton, p. 31

I like this one too:

I believe in the existence of a Supreme Intelligence pervading the Universe.
As quoted in Thomas A. Edison, Benefactor of Mankind : The Romantic Life Story of the World's Greatest Inventor (1931) by Francis Trevelyan Miller, Ch. 25 : Edison's Views on Life — His Philosophy and Religion, p. 293

We really haven't got any great amount of data on the subject, and without data how can we reach any definite conclusions? All we have — everything —
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 24, 2012
cont...

"...favors the idea of what religionists call the "Hereafter." Science, if it ever learns the facts, probably will find another more definitely descriptive term.
As quoted in Thomas A. Edison, Benefactor of Mankind : The Romantic Life Story of the World's Greatest Inventor (1931) by Francis Trevelyan Miller, Ch. 25 : Edison's Views on Life — His Philosophy and Religion, p. 295."

He's right.

The solar constant on the surface of the Earth is around 12,000 times what the energy total of human consumption is presently.

So even if we harvested 1/12,000th of that energy, we could totally cut out all other energy. Since we already use some solar energy (combined with gravity,) in the form of hydro-electric dams, we really only need about 3/4ths of 1/12,000th of the solar constant at the surface to power all of humanity forever with no pollution.

Most of our ancestors, government, and energy companies are fools.

We have all been fools for generations.
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2012
Hey fool with the negative feedback:

Do some research and LEARN THE TRUTH about solar power.

I proved, yesterday, from articles of actual facilities under construction that the install costs are the same for solar as for nuclear per megawatt productivity, and yet there is ZERO fuel cost and far cheaper maintenance and repairs, and NO toxic waste. Therefore solar is far more profitable in the long term, while being CHEAPER and cleaner over the long term.

you idiots need to educate yourselves.

You gave me all 1's when you should have given a "5" for each of my posts.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Do you actually WANT to do nothing about these fuel and pollution problems right up until existing fuel sources run out, or else we all die from pollution and AGW, and only THEN sit around scratching your head wondering what happened? Then would you support solar, after it's too late and a total collapse of infrastructure occurs?

Are you so damned stupid and short sighted?
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 24, 2012
Electromobiles aren't green neither (I mean greener than the classical cars)...


Electric motors are 85% energy efficient.

Solar boilers produce no CO2 and most of their components should have life spans of several decades to several centuries, with proper maintenance, particularly for the ones in the middle of relatively arid locations.

You can't make me believe an electric car powered by a solar power plant can somehow be "dirtier" than gasoline.

Total system efficiency probably 21%, BUT produces no CO2.

Autos total average system efficiency is 20%, but produces 19 pounds of CO2 per gallon fuel burned.

The system I conceptually outlined above would eventually remove ALL fossil fuels from the equation. There would be no CO2 or other pollutants being vaporized into the atmosphere.

How the HELL could you possibly call pure electric WITH RAILS as dirtier than fossil fuels powered autos over the long term?

You need to do some research.

All of this technology exists.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2012
Toyota is getting out of the electric car business because they are a horrible waste of money.

http://www.edmont...s/Toyota drops plan widespread sales electric/7289512/story.html
discouragedinMI
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 24, 2012
So, Lurker2358, where do you purpose getting the billions upon billions of watts of electricity at low to zero environmental impact? We are not just talking about the US or even the western world, but we need a solution for all countries and all situations. We begin small and scale as necessary, yes, but the power requirements are outside the present grid as it is. Then there is the problem of where you going to get all the aluminum, zinc, copper, gold, platinum, etc necessary for all this infrastructure and technology? It can be done but it's not as easy as you make it out to be. Especially since politics and money at this level drive science and business ... not the other way around.
ValeriaT
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 24, 2012
Therefore solar is far more profitable in the long term, while being CHEAPER and cleaner over the long term.
Solar energy is no way more profitable, than the fossil energy, when the accumulation of energy is taken into account. During winter the solar flux falls bellow one third of the nominal value, not to say about night hours - and this gap must be bridged with fossil and nuclear plants - which indeed leads to the requirements of oversized grid. Solar energy is not even very environmentally friendly, when the expensive production and purification of silicon semiconductor and indium are taken into account (high amount of greenhouse gases and heavy-metal pollutants is released during this). All this less or more hidden TCO leads to the long return rate of solar plants, which must be subsidized heavily outside of desert areas.
Lord_jag
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2012
LOL @ Toyota

If they do a horrible enough job at making an electric car then everyone will run to the pumps with their gas guzzler.

I'm still waiting for someone... ANYONE... to actually attempt to make an electric car without intentionally making it too slow, too long to charge, too ugly, too small.

All the parts are available for large electric engines in big powerful cars with large batteries. There's no excuse to make these pathetic little sewing machines and then throw up your hands complaining that you tried... they didn't try, they expressly tried NOT to make a car.

NotParker
2 / 5 (12) Sep 24, 2012
LOL @ Toyota

If they do a horrible enough job at making an electric car then everyone will run to the pumps with their gas guzzler.

I'm still waiting for someone... ANYONE... to actually attempt to make an electric car without intentionally making it too slow, too long to charge, too ugly, too small.

All the parts are available for large electric engines in big powerful cars with large batteries. There's no excuse to make these pathetic little sewing machines and then throw up your hands complaining that you tried... they didn't try, they expressly tried NOT to make a car.



The most successful hybrid is the Prius. But there is a problem:

"Each battery pack uses 10–15 kg (22–33 lb) of lanthanum, and each Prius electric motor contains 1 kg (2 lb) of neodymium; production of the car is described as "the biggest user of rare earths of any object in the world."

Rare earth materials are filthy and getting more expensive and are in short supply.
xpst
3 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012

Here is another view:

The Hidden Costs of Electricity: Comparing the Hidden Costs of Power Generation Fuels

http://www.civils...NAL2.pdf
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 24, 2012
Valeria:

I was planning on using solar boilers from parabolic troughs. If you kept up with any of my posts you would know that.

Parabolic trough uses far less rare earths than PV, and is 30% efficient vs ~11% efficiency for PV.

The U.S. DOE calculates that an amount of solar boilers equal to 18% of the size of the state of Nevada could run all U.S. energy needs.

My system would make electric cars thousands of dollars cheaper by reducing battery costs. The system would require investments, but it would be cheaper over the long term.

And for God's sake don't try to claim solar is more expensive.

I proved from articles yesterday, involving projects currently under development, that solar costs the same per Mw as nuke for INSTALLATION, but requires no fuel and no disposal and less safety requirements.

It is PROVABLY cheaper and cleaner than both fossil fuels and nuke, over the long term.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2012

Here is another view:

The Hidden Costs of Electricity: Comparing the Hidden Costs of Power Generation Fuels

http://www.civils...NAL2.pdf


Based on the data for conctrated solar given there, and the average 20% efficiency of autos with combustion engines vs the 85% efficiency of electric automobiles, I calculated that a solar powered electric grid running electric autos would produce 161 times LESS GHG than combustion engine autos on a "per gallon equivalent" basis.

That's right, 161 times less GHG emissions for solar concentrated boiler technology plus electric autos.

Also, thy may be over-estimating the net CO2 emissions of concentrated solar, because once they are made you never have any further emissions of CO2 for the ones that are pure.

You can see from the deviations from mean that some plants run far more natural gas backups than others, but I used mean..
jerryd
2.7 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2012

While I agree with Lurker on most he is way too much a 1 trick pony. We'll need many different energy sources, not just solar even as good, cheap as it is.

Biofuels can easily be made at the same time as food or from various bio wastes like all the Pines killed by bark beetles, crop residues, etc.

One doesn't use nukes when needed as they are always on even when off!! We need Gen 4-5 units that are inherently safe though instead of the expensive, complicated ones we now have.

Ev's are great and mine using 70's and before tech done lightweight, aero get 600 and 250mpg equivalents. But using more than 100 mile range of batteries is a waste a simple fueled generator giving unlimited range is smarter than electric roads which take too much copper, etc.

PV is now under $1k/kw, sunelec.com as an example, and wind under $2k/kw , Axialflux units, making both in home, building sizes competitive with FF plants or even nukes over their 20-50 yr life.

Lurker2358
1 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2012
LOOK at page 62 of the PDF "xpst" linked to.

The estimated LIFETIME AVERAGED emissions per unit power of all types for concentrated solar boilers are near zero, and many of these plants in this survey were of the type that used natural gas complimentary, rather than storing power over night.

Based on the deviations, the ones that store power over night and forego natural gas are twice as clean still.

Just imagine when you have factories powered entirely by solar boilers, so that no Carbon based fuel or nuke based power is used in producing the components!

You make more pollutants every time you take a shit...

Can we please stop with the damned lies.
jerryd
not rated yet Sep 24, 2012

I should also mention Lurker is wrong on gas/diesel car eff which is only 7-8%, not 20% in real life.

CSP plants can use biomass/wood wastes as backups along with heat storage.

Our most important source of energy is eff, conservation as the fuel/energy you don't use is cheapest of all.

So lurker please be a little more careful in your posts and don't exaggerate CSP, electric road claims as while good, not the only solution at all. All you will do is make people think you are a crank. Just point out the good things about CSP and not dismiss much other good tech.

BTW do you drive EV's? If not, why not?
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2012
PV is now under $1k/kw, sunelec.com as an example, and wind under $2k/kw , Axialflux units, making both in home, building sizes competitive with FF plants or even nukes over their 20-50 yr life.


this is where people, including the news media, gets this confused.

A solar plant makes a certain power rating basically indefinitely, as does a wind turbine. Sure there are ups and downs, but they produce this power without "fuels" of any kind.

This is why the productivity should be reported in Joules per unit dollar price of "install plus maintenance plus fuel" for all power systems.

When evaluated for ENERGY per unit cost, the solar and wind are far cheaper over their lifetime than any other fuel, but for some reason almost NOBODY actually reads and comprehends what they read when they see these figures.

A ten megawatt wind turbine produces as much energy as the chemical energy of 2,407,328 gallons of gasoline in one year, which is worth about 9.6 million dollars per year....
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2012
A ten megawatt wind turbine produces as much energy as the chemical energy of 2,407,328 gallons of gasoline in one year, which is worth about 9.6 million dollars per year...

The 9.6 million dollars per year figure is about the same whether you evaluate it against the energy content of Gasoline, or whether you evaluate it against the price of nuclear energy.

For the sake of argument, if you only actually got 1/4th of this energy level from the turbine, it would still be 2.4 million dollars per year, either way.

At that rate, in the 30 year expected lifetime of the Turbine, it will pay back about 72 million dollars.

This return on investment is far better than the 30 year returns on a medium yield stock or mutual fund investment under 1990's and early 00's market conditions....and I have not even applied exponential expansion from re-investment of the income in more turbines (or solar) during this time period because each turbine actually pays for itself every few years at WORST...
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2012
A ten megawatt wind turbine produces as much energy as the chemical energy of 2,407,328 gallons of gasoline in one year, which is worth about 9.6 million dollars per year...


Natural gas is much, much cheaper.

More importantly, the wind rarely blows consistently. Therefore wind is worthless on calm days. Therefore you need to build a 10MW backup power plant for each 10MW wind turbine and you have to keep it running, burning fuel, because power plant do not start instantly.

When you factor in those costs, wind is a waste of money.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2012
It took me a while to double-check some figures, but here's what I came up with.

Natural Gas and wind turbines cost about the same per megawatt installed.

the turbines, at just 1/4th capacity averaged throughout the year, can make enough money at around $0.11/kWh to pay for itself in 4.15 years, or $2409000 per year even at 1/4th capacity.

To make the same amount of energy, the natural gas plant must SPEND $875,245 for fuel, which it will sell at the same price.

But they both have similar initial build costs. Therefore the wind turbine is more profitable over the long term.

After 4.15 years you can build a new one.

1 -> 4.15 years-paid
2 -> 4.15 years-both paid* (did this so no loan needed)
4 -> 2.8 years-all paid
8 -> 2.8 years-all paid
16 -> 2.8 years-all paid
32 -> 2.8 years
64 -> 2.8 years
128 -> 2.8 years
256 -> 2.8 years

27.9 years.

I've multiplied the initial investment by 256 total turbines and spent only the price of the first one out of pocket(or through loans).
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2012
Now, I'll be a little gracious with you on the above progression.

Let's throw in insurance costs and maintenance, and assume we are a "big energy company," and that will push us back to about 6 years for payback, so the exponential growth progression won't be quite as fast.

Crap, my logic is wrong above, it's just a simple exponential.

1-6 yr
2-6 yr
4-6 yr
8-6 yr
16-6yrs -> 30yrs
31-6yrs (1st rotates out)
61-6yrs (2nd rotates out)
120-6yrs (3rd & 4th rotates out)
236-6yrs (5th - 8th rotates out)
464-6yrs (9th -16th rotates out). ->60yrs

This is how wind and solar work when you reinvest revenues.
etc.

That's the future baby.

Now, once you get beyond the second turbine, you can actually add them faster than this, because you don't "need" to wait 6 years to add the 3rd turbine, you only need to wait 3 years, because that's how much spending money you'll have by then. I just used perfect blocks of 6 years so I wouldn't screw it up by over-thinking like in the previous post.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2012
Poor ParkerTard. Not even his own reference agrees with him.

From ParkerTard's own reference.

"The decision to drop plans for more extensive rollout of its eQ city car leaves Toyota with just a single pure EV in its line-up. The automaker will launch an all-electric RAV4 model in the United States that was jointly developed with Tesla Motors.

Toyota expects to sell 2,600 of the electric-powered sports utility vehicle over the next three years."

"Toyota is getting out of the electric car business " - ParkerTard

Globally, Nissan has sold about 38,000 Leaf electric cars since the vehicle's launch at the end of 2010.
VendicarD
2.7 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2012
Claptrap.

"Therefore you need to build a 10MW backup power plant for each 10MW wind turbine and you have to keep it runnig." - ParkerTard

Natural Gas fired turbines can be used for standby power generation and they start in seconds.

Batteries can be used, as well as pumped water storage, etc.

This has been explained to you dozens of times.

Yet you continue to tell the same old, tired lies.

Your mental disease keeps you claiming that it can't be done even though Europe and China are well on their way to building what you claim can't be done.

Such Idiocy.
rwinners
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2012
Bio fuels are not supposed to be green. They are supposed to provide for domestic energy sufficiency. And they do contribute to it. There are some disconnects, but they will be ironed out.
dirt
1 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2012
1. Animal feeds are the real culprit if you want to talk about land not being used to grow food. 7.5 times more animal feed grown than ethanol grown.

2. No mention of algae ethanol. This is happening very near my home and I'm wondering if it's a project I should try to work for. If anyone knows more about algae ethanol, I'd love to hear from you via PM.

I believe it's done in plastic bags, not on open water. Algae can grow anywhere and thrives in the humid air of subtropical Florida.
unknownorgin
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2012
This whole "green" thing is more like an infinite number of shades of grey.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2012
How long do you expect humans to burn natural gas?

According to a site I found online with estimated amounts, the U.S. has enough to theoretically suppor present world population energy demands for about 75 years, assuming no more population growth, which is a joke. 9 Billion by 2035 to 2040 is practically guaranteed.

However, if you burned all of this natural gas, it would add about 1246PPM CO2 to the atmosphere, which is just about 3 times more than what is already in the atmosphere, bringing the total to 4 times present levels or about 5 times "natural" pre-industrial levels.

Given what AGW is causing in the world already, what do you suppose is going to be the outcome by the time humans quadruple present day CO2 levels?

I don't think anyone wants to live in a pressure cooker.
NotParker
2 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2012

Siemens say the 2005 generation of their gas power plants take 150 minutes from cold start to full power.

http://www.energy...lity.pdf

45-50 minutes from hot start.

To backup wind, they would need to be running all the time.

NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2012

Given what AGW is causing in the world already, what do you suppose is going to be the outcome by the time humans quadruple present day CO2 levels?


The theory used to be 1 - 4C per doubling of CO2.

Thanks to 15 years of no change in temperature, the realistic theory is .1C per doubling.

And that minuscule amount is swamped by changes in bright sunshine and clouds and aerosols.
Newbeak
not rated yet Sep 29, 2012
I think Lurker needs Solar Road technology to power his world:http://www.solarroadways.com/
Newbeak
not rated yet Sep 30, 2012


I believe it's done in plastic bags, not on open water. Algae can grow anywhere and thrives in the humid air of subtropical Florida.

There was a company that tried growing algae in plastic tubes for fuel,but suddenly dropped out of the running without an explanation,and shifted over to growing food in automated greenhouses (http://www.verticrop.com/).The front runner in algal biofuel production now seems to be Solazyme (http://solazyme.com/).If they can successfully scale up production,it might wean the country off petroleum.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.