Re: FW: Re ethanol
Just be sure you don't heat it.As I found out heat or micro-waves kill enzymes. REH pete wrote: > Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Um, this is straying kinda far off topic, but when Pete Vincent wrote: > > > >> As to "cellulosic biomass", that is protein,... > > > >I hope you were making a thinko/typo. I suppose any aggregate biomass > >contains some protein but cellulose is a polysaccharide -- a sugar > >polymer -- not protein -- amino acid polymer. If you bust cellulose > >up, you get glucose. Raw wood contains a bunch of other stuff, > >particularly lignin, but it's around 60% cellulose. > > Ack. Clearly a major brain lapse on my part. Don't know where it came > from, but fortunately I never have to make any claims that I'm a chemist. > OK, so presumably we can cook up a good broth of enzymes and biomass and > get out glucose, which then allows the fermentation process to proceed. > This doesn't answer my other questions, though... > > -Pete Vincent
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
Thomas Lunde persisted: > and for that you need some guys to sit in front of terminals for > months at a time, making corrections and hoping that they are not making the > problem worse. I want to know about those guys? Do we have them? India has them, for instance. India is one of the main profiteers of the y2k business. According to the Indian association of software producers (Nasscom), India has y2k orders in the volume of more than 2 billion dollars, and demand is still bigger than supply. Greetings, Chris
Re: FW: Re ethanol
Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Um, this is straying kinda far off topic, but when Pete Vincent wrote: > >> As to "cellulosic biomass", that is protein,... > >I hope you were making a thinko/typo. I suppose any aggregate biomass >contains some protein but cellulose is a polysaccharide -- a sugar >polymer -- not protein -- amino acid polymer. If you bust cellulose >up, you get glucose. Raw wood contains a bunch of other stuff, >particularly lignin, but it's around 60% cellulose. Ack. Clearly a major brain lapse on my part. Don't know where it came from, but fortunately I never have to make any claims that I'm a chemist. OK, so presumably we can cook up a good broth of enzymes and biomass and get out glucose, which then allows the fermentation process to proceed. This doesn't answer my other questions, though... -Pete Vincent
Re: Re ethanol
> Mackey David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Most Ethanal is manufactured from agricultural crops such as sugar >>cane, corn and wheat starch. Ethanol can be produced from trees but the >>production costs are very high and have only been experimental. Brazil uses >>sugar cane to produce most of its ethanol. > >Yes, that makes sense to me. I'm puzzled by a number of things in the article >Ed posted. Generally ethanol is produced by aqueous fermentaion of sugars, >then it must be distilled by application of considerable heat, which >severely encroaches on the efficiency of the process, unless one can >arrange for heating by otherwise waste or unused heat such as sunlight or >industrial waste heat. As to "cellulosic biomass", that is protein, and >while it will give off methanol as part of its decomposition under >application of heat (this is where wood alcohol comes from), I haven't >heard before of any means of yielding ethanol from it (chemical synthesis >of ethanol from methanol is not trivial). I'm rather curious about the >mechanism and efficiency of this process. Potentially, one could get >a fair amount of ethanol out of cellulose, just in terms of counting >atoms, but it doesn't look to me that there would be an easy way of >getting a high yield. Of course, the organic waste coming out of the >process might have other uses which could feed back into the process to >increase its energy efficiency, but still I suspect a lot of cellulose >would have to go in relative to the amount of ethanol coming out. > >Another item in the post which has me puzzled is this question of CO2 >output. I can't see why ethanol should put out only 1% the CO2 of >gasoline. There is a higher ratio of hydrogen to carbon in ethanol, >which I could see giving an improvement, say decreasing CO2 to around >65-70% that of gas, but You're still burning carbon, and you've >got to end up with CO2. >-Pete Vincent > Hi Pete, I only got as far as chemistry 100. Perhaps the authors of the article in "Foreign Affairs" are also bad at chemistry. One, Richard Lugar, is a US Senator and Chair of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, the other, R. James Woolsey, a lawyer, was president of Central Intelligence from 1993 to 1995. Both seem very high (figuratively speaking, of course) on ethanol. Look at the article and see what you think. Ed Weick
Re: FW: Re ethanol
Um, this is straying kinda far off topic, but when Pete Vincent wrote: > As to "cellulosic biomass", that is protein,... I hope you were making a thinko/typo. I suppose any aggregate biomass contains some protein but cellulose is a polysaccharide -- a sugar polymer -- not protein -- amino acid polymer. If you bust cellulose up, you get glucose. Raw wood contains a bunch of other stuff, particularly lignin, but it's around 60% cellulose. - Mike
Re: Y2K
Subject: Y to K Status Report Y-to-K Date Change Project Status Report "Our staff has completed the 18 months of work on time and on budget. We have gone through every line of code in every program in every system. We have analyzed all databases, all data files, including backups and historic archives, and modified all data to reflect the change. We are proud to report that we have completed the "Y-to-K" date change mission, and have now implemented all changes to all programs and all data to reflect your new standards: Januark, Februark, March, April, Mak, June, Julk, August, September, October, November, December As well as: Sundak, Mondak, Tuesdak, Wednesdak, Thursdak, Fridak, Saturdak I trust that this is satisfactory, because to be honest, none of this Y to K problem has made any sense to me. But I understand it is a global problem, and our team is glad to help in any way possible. And what does the year 2000 have to do with it? Speaking of which, what do you think we ought to do next year when the two digit year rolls over from 99 to 00? We'll await your direction." === H talk about bad luck! > Over three weeks, I lost my job, my computer when the back porch of my > third floor apartment flooded, my closest friendship, most of a molar, > confidence in my landlord, and my ISP. I missed ConFusion and a couple of > great concerts, and instead of getting the tax refund I expected, I owe $750. > <<& when I'd gotten unable to count all that on my fingers, and wrote it > down, I didn't add that all that happened not long after I'd figured that > I'd never be able to get the time off to go to Australia as I'd planned so > long >> -- P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=etech http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp Common sense is not common, and conventional wisdom is not wisdom. But at least you can have conventional sense. ~~ Daily Whale
RE: ethanol
> A couple of interesting points: Brazil already has 3.6 million pure > ethanol driven vehicles on the road... And they're turning the Amazon Basin into a wasteland at an alarming rate. Maybe Jay has the figures to do the accounting on this. Enough "cellulosic biomass" -- typically, that means trees -- to generate enough ethanol to replace a significant fraction of fuel protroleum use is how many trees? I live in a generally woodland area of what the industry would consider second-rate trees for any use but pulp. And we're already seeing ecologically unsustainable clearcutting by hungry small woodlot owners to feed megacorp buyers. A tree is marketable if a semiautomated mill can cut a single grade C 2x4 out of it. Most Ethanal is manufactured from agricultural crops such as sugar cane, corn and wheat starch. Ethanol can be produced from trees but the production costs are very high and have only been experimental. Brazil uses sugar cane to produce most of its ethanol. Recent studies in Australia suggest that ethanol would only be a viable option as a blend with petroleum. Even so there are a number of issues that would need to be resolved before general use. Firstly there are technical problems with mixing ethanol and petroleum, secondly ethanol and ethanol blends lead to less efficiency in current vehicles, however can be more efficient in vehicles designed to operate only on pure ethanol fuels. While there is a reduction in carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from vehicle emissions from cars using ethanol, as the original story points out, there is a significant increase in other pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (this leads to smog), and volatile organic compounds (some of which are toxic). I would expect an ethanol industry to promote massive clear cutting of "over-mature" and "inefficient" woodlands (read healthy, diverse biome) with monoculture replanting of fast-growing plantation species. Feh. Anybody have the numbers on acres of woods per supertanker-load of crude equivalence? Estimates in Australia on the total land that could support crops suitable for ethanol production (crops based on wheat, sugar cane, artichokes, cassava and sugar beat) have been put at 21 506 thousand hectares. This would yield 22.05 million tonnes per year of raw material or 5 700 Megalites of Ethanol. Enough to supply 20% of Australia's fuel supply. I've seen figures that suggest only 15% of current US consumption could be supplied by Ethanol (based on agricultural crops). This does not take into account other demands on land such as competition from sheep and cattle farming, droughts, land fertility problems, land degradation, etc. Estimates costs in 1994 prices put the cost of ethanol production at 50 to 70 cents per litre. For ethanol to be profitable it has been estimated by the Australian Institute of Petroleum that the cost of a barrel of oil would have to be in the range of US$50-70. At present oil prices it basically ain't a goer. It would be fare better to concentrate on improving city design to reduce the need for cars and trucks, and on improving engine design to improve efficiency. <<...>> - Mike -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html ---
FW: Re ethanol
Mackey David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Most Ethanal is manufactured from agricultural crops such as sugar >cane, corn and wheat starch. Ethanol can be produced from trees but the >production costs are very high and have only been experimental. Brazil uses >sugar cane to produce most of its ethanol. Yes, that makes sense to me. I'm puzzled by a number of things in the article Ed posted. Generally ethanol is produced by aqueous fermentaion of sugars, then it must be distilled by application of considerable heat, which severely encroaches on the efficiency of the process, unless one can arrange for heating by otherwise waste or unused heat such as sunlight or industrial waste heat. As to "cellulosic biomass", that is protein, and while it will give off methanol as part of its decomposition under application of heat (this is where wood alcohol comes from), I haven't heard before of any means of yielding ethanol from it (chemical synthesis of ethanol from methanol is not trivial). I'm rather curious about the mechanism and efficiency of this process. Potentially, one could get a fair amount of ethanol out of cellulose, just in terms of counting atoms, but it doesn't look to me that there would be an easy way of getting a high yield. Of course, the organic waste coming out of the process might have other uses which could feed back into the process to increase its energy efficiency, but still I suspect a lot of cellulose would have to go in relative to the amount of ethanol coming out. Another item in the post which has me puzzled is this question of CO2 output. I can't see why ethanol should put out only 1% the CO2 of gasoline. There is a higher ratio of hydrogen to carbon in ethanol, which I could see giving an improvement, say decreasing CO2 to around 65-70% that of gas, but You're still burning carbon, and you've got to end up with CO2. -Pete Vincent
Re: ethanol
Michael Spencer: >> A couple of interesting points: Brazil already has 3.6 million pure >> ethanol driven vehicles on the road... > >And they're turning the Amazon Basin into a wasteland at an alarming >rate. It may indeed be thus. Forests have been used commercially and regrown before. They change enormously in the process. The current Black Forest in Germany is the sixth generation or so of the original forest. Beginning in about the 15th Century, the previous five were turned into coke for the metal industry. The wildlife? The heads hang on the walls of local inns and the bodies were turned into pate. Hopefully, the authors of the article I cited did not have this in mind. They mentioned the use of declining agricultural areas, which is the direction in which the manufacture of ethanol has to head if it is to make any sense at all. I should add that I'm not sure that it is ethanol manufacturers that are attacking the Amazon forests. Perhaps they are as well. However, much that I've read suggests that cattle ranching and small scale agriculture is principally to blame. Ed Weick
Re: ethanol
> And they're turning the Amazon Basin into a wasteland at an alarming > rate. Maybe Jay has the figures to do the accounting on this. >Enough "cellulosic biomass" -- typically, that means trees -- to Neither ethanol nor methanol has the potential to "replace" fossil fuels -- mostly because of the land constraints. But David Pimentel also says that ethanol consumes more energy than it produces: "Ethanol production is wasteful of fossil energy resources and does not increase energy security. This is because considerably more energy, much of it high-grade fossil fuels, is required to produce ethanol than is available in the ethanol output. Specifically, about 71% more energy is used to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy contained in a gallon of ethanol." Pimentel: http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/v98n2/mkh-new7.html Lots of stuff on alternatives at: http://dieoff.com/page143.htm Jay
