[Gasification] who killed the electric car?

Tue Apr 8 17:08:04 CDT 2008

Peak or not-- don´t concentrate too much on vehicles...
never forget: as long as we burn most of the oil and gas stationarily for 
heat and electricity, transport will be no problem.
If we substitute only a small fraction of heating oil and gas, we will be 
rolling for years.
Rolf

>             
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:07:53 -0400
> Von: "Roger Samson" <rsamson at reap-canada.com>
> An: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'" 
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Gasification] who killed the electric car?
> 
>             Greg 
> 
> In the movie, most people wanted to buy their cars back in California. In
> florida they already use electric golfcarts for local trip. I think an
> electric vehicle for most could be be a great second vehicle for local 
> trips
> where much of your mileage is done. Most people don't live in severe 
> winter
> climates.
> 
> If you look at the cost per km or mile, a light electric vehicle is 
> pretty
> interesting option as is a biogas fuelled vehicle. I think if we never 
> had a
> liquid fossil fuel energy dowry we would be moving mainly on electricity 
> or
> biogas in temperate climates. If you look at the energy conversion
> efficiency of cellulosic ethanol you are looking at 340 litres per tonne
> (according to the Iogen web site). That's a conversion efficiency of 1 
> tonne
> of biomass into 7.13 GJ of energy or about 40%. Instead you could gasify 
> the
> biomass to produce heat and power at 85% efficiency and avoid spending
> 350-500 million on a cellulosic ethanol plant.  To me it's a much better
> option and unlike cellulose ethanol is ready to go. If we are at peak oil 
> as
> many are now discussing (and Shell is paying for advertisements about the
> problem of peak oil), it's the best substitute option we have. 
> 
> Roger Samson
> 
> Executive Director
> 
> REAP-Canada
> 
> Box 125 Centennial Centre CCB13
> 
> Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9
> 
> T: (514) 398-7743
> 
> T: (514) 398-7972
> 
> E: rsamson at reap-canada.com
> 
> W: www.reap-canada.com 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Greg and 
> April
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 11:28 AM
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Gallon Newsletter overviews Biofuels and
> BillC-33
> 
> Roger,
> 
> It wasn't just ethanol that killed the electric car, it was performance 
> when
> 
> off the test track ( in mild climates ) into the real world that also had 
> a 
> major impact.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of ethanol ( I think butanol is the way 
> to
> 
> go my self ), but performance in winter weather and performance in hill 
> country ( or worse yet hill country in cold weather ), makes even ethanol 
> a 
> better choice than batteries.
> 
> 
> In weather below 32* ( and more so below zero ) the batteries have major 
> problems, and small electric generators just don't have the capacity to 
> over
> 
> come it.    When the Prius was first released and then sold in Denver CO, 
> quite a few were bought so people could efficiently commute into Denver, 
> from outlying areas.
> 
> That first winter, a full 10-15% of all towing calls were from Prius 
> owners,
> 
> that were stuck, because the cold weather drained their batteries, and 
> the 
> small generator wasn't big enough to keep the vehicle moving at more than 
> a 
> snails pace.
> 
> Few Prius were sold the following year - and there was a surge in Prius 
> trade-in's for vehicles with conventional engines.
> 
> 
> Greg H.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Roger Samson" <rsamson at reap-canada.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'" 
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 7:52
> Subject: [Gasification] Gallon Newsletter overviews Biofuels and Bill 
> C-33
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The gallon newsletter is the most widely read environment newsletter 
> from
> > Canada which summarizes leading environmental news stories
> >
> > http://www.cialgroup.com/gallonletter.html
> >
> > Here is their recent summary Vol. 13, No. 3, April 7, 2008 on Biofuels 
> and
> > Bill C-33
> >
> > roger
> >
> > ps. Everybody should watch the movie :'who killed the electric car" and 
> > all
> > you gasification fans should promote electric cars instead of ethanol 
> > (grain
> > or cellulose) as a better option
> >
> >
> >
> > BIOFUELS AND BILL C-33
> >
> >
> >
> > Canada's Parliament is reviewing Bill C-33 to develop new renewable 
> fuels
> > regulations through amendments of the Canadian Environmental Protection 
> > Act
> > CEPA. The regulations are intended to:
> >
> > * Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 4 megatonnes per year in the
> > transportation sector and to
> > * Benefit Canadian agriculture by boosting demand for feedstocks and
> > creating new markets for agricultural products.
> >
> > The regulations will require minimum renewable fuel content of 5% or 
> more 
> > in
> > gasoline and 2% in diesel and heating oil by 2012.
> >
> >
> >
> > REAP: Direct Heat from Pellets
> >
> >
> >
> > Making a presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on
> > Agriculture and Agri-food on February 28 was Roger Samson, Executive
> > Director of REAP (Resource Efficient Agricultural Production) Canada 
> based
> > on a 2008 study REAP conducted in association with BIOCAP Canada 
> > Foundation.
> > The study is called Analysing Ontario Biofuel options: Greenhouse Gas
> > Mitigation Efficiency and Costs.
> >
> >
> >
> > Samson provided a lifecycle GHG emissions for bioenergy which indicated 
> > that
> > Canadian corn ethanol, soybean or canola biodiesel have the highest GHG
> > emissions compared to electrical power generation from renewable 
> sources
> > such as manure and straw pellets. Electricity from wind power has the 
> > lowest
> > GHG emissions but close are heating directly with geothermal, 
> switchgrass
> > pellets, and solar. The lifecycle analysis is highly dependent on
> > assumptions and available data and the report recommends better 
> accounting
> > systems. For example, some studies do not account for carbon-rich 
> forests
> > and grasslands converted to croplands with a net loss of carbon 
> storage.
> > While governments provide incentives for green power and liquid 
> biofuels,
> > there are few support programs for green heat.
> >
> >
> >
> > Issues raised by the proposed regulations are identified as:
> >
> > * Conversion of grasslands which store carbon into annual crops which
> > could "present a substantial risk to the global carbon cycle."
> > * Canada already imports 2 million tonnes of corn per year. Surplus
> > land for crop production doesn't exist so the regulations would benefit
> > out-of-country farmers as imports for both feed for livestock and for
> > ethanol will have to increase.
> > * Ethanol producers use natural gas which may have to be imported
> > within the next two decades according to the National Energy Board.
> > * Cellulosic ethanol may not be cost competitive because it is
> > inefficient to produce (a large amount of biomass is needed with only a 
> > 39%
> > conversion efficiency) and capital intensive.
> > * Pellet plants in contrast convert almost all of the biomass to solid
> > fuel pellets, a proven technology, at a fraction of the cost of the 
> > capital
> > cost of cellulosic ethanol plants, still not commercially viable.
> > * Biodiesel from animal fats, waste vegetable oils and off-spec feed
> > grains benefit both the economy and the environment but biodiesel from 
> > seed
> > oil crops is too expensive.
> >
> > REAP recommends that the bill be withdrawn because:
> >
> > 1. It cannot achieve the 4 megatonnes of CO2 emission reduction.
> >
> > 2. It will benefit US corn growers.
> >
> > 3. It lacks fiscal responsibility. CO2 offsets from corn are 6-10 times 
> > more
> > expensive than other renewable energy sources.
> >
> >
> >
> > Instead REAP recommends:
> >
> > * A results-based policy framework to ensure effective carbon offset
> > efficiencies and high energy output per hectare.
> > * Move towards perennial crops rather than using annual food crops as
> > fuel which will lead to land conversion of natural areas, food 
> inflation 
> > and
> > to global food insecurity.
> > * The government should not pick winners but apply incentives using
> > marketplace principles. A $25/tonne carbon tax and a $25/tonne green 
> > carbon
> > incentive would ensure parity among all the renewable energy players, 
> > reduce
> > impacts on fossil fuel energy users and provide incentives to switch to
> > green carbon sources.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Roger Samson
> >
> > Executive Director
> >
> > REAP-Canada
> >
> > Box 125 Centennial Centre CCB13
> >
> > Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9
> >
> > T: (514) 398-7743
> >
> > T: (514) 398-7972
> >
> > E:  <mailto:rsamson at reap-canada.com> rsamson at reap-canada.com
> >
> > W:  <http://www.reap-canada.com/> www.reap-canada.com
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gasification mailing list
> > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > 
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> > http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
> 

-- 
Psst! Geheimtipp: Online Games kostenlos spielen bei den GMX Free Games! 
http://games.entertainment.gmx.net/de/entertainment/games/free