- #1
dan020350
- 35
- 0
Is bio-fuel the answer for man's problems, or can we produce petro rather fighting over it?
Drakkith said:cannot produce regular petroleum oil from anything at this time.
We can? Such as hydrothermal liquefaction? And what other ways also?DrStupid said:We can (e.g. by hydrothermal liquefaction) but as you already mentioned not with the required quantities.
dan020350 said:And what other ways also?
AlephZero said:All the petroleum underground (and all the coal) was produced from plants. The only problem is, that process takes rather a long time.
dan020350 said:We can? Such as hydrothermal liquefaction? And what other ways also?
dan020350 said:Anyway way we can haste that process?
Drakkith said:Neither. Biofuel cannot be produced in large enough amounts to sustain the world and we cannot produce regular petroleum oil from anything at this time.
DrStupid said:We can (e.g. by hydrothermal liquefaction) but as you already mentioned not with the required quantities.
dan020350 said:We can? Such as hydrothermal liquefaction? And what other ways also?
I don't believe physics or existing technology stops the production of the required quantities, that is 18 million barrels per day of liquid hydrocarbon in the US. See, e.g., the Dismukes brief above that indicates the required surface area is manageable. Rather, economics currently prevents this route from occurring: it is far cheaper to pull petroleum out of the ground than to grow precursor above ground and then process it (so far). Also, I suspect the process would require some kind of ocean based biomass, as the water supply must be on the order of some 50 million barrels per day (again US only).DrStupid said:We can (e.g. by hydrothermal liquefaction) but as you already mentioned not with the required quantities.
DrDu said:I read yesterday a statement of Michel (who got the Nobel prize for his work on photosynthesis) that the overall efficiency of plants to produce fuel is very low (only about 1 % or so) especially when compared to photovoltaic installations.
Ygggdrasil said:Here's a link to an editorial Michel published in Angewandte Chemie two years ago discussing this point. I'm not sure I completely agree with his argument, but it's definitely worth serious consideration.
When the yields of biofuels per hectare are known, one can easily calculate how much of the energy of the sunlight is stored in the biofuels. For German “biodiesel” which is based on rapeseed, it is less than 0.1 %, for bioethanol less than 0.2 %, and for biogas around 0.3 %. However, these values even do not take into account that more than 50 % of the energy stored in the biofuel had to be invested in order to obtain the biomass (for producing fertilizers and pesticides, for ploughing the fields, for transport) and the chemical conversion into the respective biofuel. This energy normally is derived from fossil fuels. The production and use of biofuels therefore is not CO2-neutral. In particular, the energy input is very large for the production of bioethanol from wheat or maize, and some scientists doubt that there is a net gain of energy. Certainly the reduction of CO2 release is marginal. The yield of second-generation biofuels where entire plants are used may be doubled. However, the energy input probably also increases. For example, in the production of biodiesel by the Fischer–Tropsch process, hydrogen has to be added because syngas obtained from biomass contains insufficient amounts of hydrogen. Taken together, the production of biofuels constitutes an extremely inefficient land use. This statement is true also for the production of bioethanol from sugar cane in Brazil.
No, biofuel cannot completely replace petro oil. While biofuel can be used as an alternative source of energy, it is not as efficient as petro oil and cannot meet the current demand for energy worldwide.
No, petro oil is not considered a type of farm produce. It is a non-renewable resource that is extracted from deep within the earth's crust, not grown or harvested on farms.
The main advantage of using biofuel is that it is a renewable source of energy, meaning it can be replenished and used indefinitely. It also produces fewer emissions and is biodegradable, making it more environmentally friendly compared to petro oil.
Yes, petro oil can be used to produce biofuel. However, this process is not sustainable as it involves using a non-renewable resource to produce a renewable one. It is more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly to produce biofuel from other sources such as plant-based materials.
The cost of biofuel varies depending on the type of biofuel and the production process. In general, biofuel tends to be more expensive than petro oil, but as technology advances and production methods become more efficient, the cost of biofuel is expected to decrease.