Wolf - Since the fuel is created from biomass, the CO2 trapped in the fuel was taken from the atmosphere by the biomass. This makes the plant-fuel-engine cycle a closed loop. Every bit of CO2 that the engine gives off, was--by definition--captured from the atmosphere by the plants from which the fuel was made. (This is as opposed to burning fossil fuels, which frees carbon captured long ago and adds it to that which is available in the atmosphere.)
What a great idea! I wonder how viable it is for actual use in the real world.
Sounds like good news from Germany. I'm sure if this new fuel has CO2 emission problems, they will be identified very early by other scientists. c.i.
wolf
You mean this part?
Quote:
Das Null-Summen-Spiel: Das bei der Biotrol-Verbrennung im Motor entstehende Kohlendioxid ist zuvor beim Wachsen der Pflanzen (aus denen Biotrol gewonnen wird) der Luft entnommen worden. Ergo ist der Treibstoff für die Atmosphäre CO2-neutral.
Well, Scrat obviously explained it very correct - although I think, 'Null-Summen-
Spiel' explains by itself :wink:
[I really don't know how to translate that, sorry('Null-sum-match' doesn't sound right :wink: )]
how about "zero-sum game" or "zero-sum situation"?
Interesting development. I agree with the touted benefits as described by Walter and Scrat. However this development is hardly new. Biomass fuels were used in diesel and otto-cycle engines eighty years ago. Germany, I believe made extensive use of biomass derived fuels during WWII.
Cost is an important distinction. A factor of three difference is a very big deal. Germany is faced with a tax problem now. If biomass fuels are untaxed and if their use spreads where will the government get the needed revenue?
George
Do you mean the gasification of coal and carbon containing fuels and the use of the gas as fuel in internal combustion engines?
This surely is a technology which has been utilized for more than a century, and especially after WWI and in and after WWII Germany was leading in this "technology". (The 1943 Mercedes needed 24 kg/100 km.)
No, I mean fuels derived from living biomass sources. I know such fuels were used in this country during the early years of the automobile age and later (generally on an experimental basis) in deisel engines, by the military. I know that Germany had an extensive industry deriving liquid fuels from their rather extensive resources of brown coal. It has been my understanding they also used biomass derived fuels as well.
The technology is hardly new. Biomass derived ethanol is extensively used in the United States today. However, it too requires government economic subsidies to be commercially acceptable. The problem always has been the economic cost of these fuels. This issue is significant.
cicerone imposter wrote:Sounds like good news from Germany. I'm sure if this new fuel has CO2 emission problems, they will be identified very early by other scientists. c.i.
It can't, for the reasons I outlined. (It is not possible to get out more CO2 than the biomass captured.)
Well, it seems biofuel is "converting the biomass from wood residue into fuel" and is environmentally friendly according to Walter's article. Since they claim it's the first time this is being done, I still stick by my earlier post to make sure it does what it promises to do. The issue of economics will also be important. c.i.
Walter: okay, now I get it. It comes to
this, right?
George: do you get up in the morning? Maybe you shouldn't; it's cheaper that way.
It would indeed
seam biodiesel is cleaner, but I wonder whether it would cut down carbon dioxide emissions (CO2). Does biodiesel really help us to combat the greenhouse effect??
Well, at least here in Germany 'biodiesel' is quite different to what Daimler Chrysler suggests. (At least my opinion, with just some school knowledge of chemistry and physics.)
I imagine this type of fuel production needs to grow huge carbon sinks to capture its own CO2 emissions, or else, it would merely accelerate the natural carbonization of biowaste. It would thus tap into the natural decomposition of biomass, take energy from it, and exhaust its CO2 in an accelerated way through motor engines.
The benefits are indeed that there is no longer any need to exploit oil and gas wells, and that -- in the long run, and on a gobal scale -- no extra CO2 is emitted.
Basically, it's a great planetary system of recycling natural energy. But I'm not clear on whether it would cut CO2 emissions in the short term, as it would continuously accelerate the Earth's biomassive CO2-release.
Not sure either. When ethanol is produced from biomass (fermented from corn) huge amounts of carbon dioxide are produced in the process.
wolf wrote:It would indeed
seam biodiesel is cleaner, but I wonder whether it would cut down carbon dioxide emissions (CO2). Does biodiesel really help us to combat the greenhouse effect??
It's a carbon cycle. Burning this kind of fuel doesn't add to atmospheric carbon because the fuel took its carbon from the atmosphere.
1) Plants take in the atmospheric carbon in the form of CO2 and store the carbon.
2) The plants get turned into fuel. The fuel now contains the stored carbon.
3) We burn the fuel, releasing the stored carbon into the atmosphere as CO2.
4) Go to 1.
roger wrote:Not sure either. When ethanol is produced from biomass (fermented from corn) huge amounts of carbon dioxide are produced in the process.
The question is not whether carbon is released in the process, but where that carbon originated, right? (Am I missing something?) The carbon in fossil fuels has been stored there for a long time. When we burn these fuels we release carbon into the atmosphere that was not there. But biomass fuels took their carbon from the atmosphere recently, so whatever they release during combustion is simply being released back into the atmosphere from which it came, right? No net gain. (Or do plants pull a significant amount of carbon from the groundwater?)
I admit I am bootstrapping here, but this seems logical to me.
No, you're correct, Scrat.
But my reservations are of a temporal nature: the plants we burn would release their CO2 in the atmosphere anyhow, when they decay. The difference is that we would accelerate this process dramatically. And I don't know whether, given this acceleration, we can talk of an equilibrated process.
wolf wrote:No, you're correct, Scrat.
But my reservations are of a temporal nature: the plants we burn would release their CO2 in the atmosphere anyhow, when they decay. The difference is that we would accelerate this process dramatically. And I don't know whether, given this acceleration, we can talk of an equilibrated process.
How would we accelerate it if it is going to happen anyway??? That makes no sense. In fact, since the fuel form would be a carbon storage medium, we might actually increase the time that carbon remains stored and out of the atmosphere.
I guess you're right. I guess it couldn't harm the ecosystem to tap into its natural cycle. The planet's carbon flux is a complicated affair, however. Even a small shift in the balance of carbon cycling in the terrestrial biosphere could have a large impact on climate.
Solar and wind energy are always preferable, as a source for hydrogen power. Harmless all the way.
