Comments on: New fuel standards aren’t as tough as they look http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/28/new-fuel-standards-arent-as-tough-as-they-look/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: agnux http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/28/new-fuel-standards-arent-as-tough-as-they-look/#comment-17194 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:42:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3740#comment-17194 A POSSIBLE SOLUTION: BIODIESEL MADE WITH GARBAGE “The Fuel Of The Future”

A group of Spanish developers working under the company name Ecofasa, headed by chief executive officer and inventor Francisco Angulo, has developed a biochemical process to turn urban solid waste into a fatty acid biodiesel feedstock.

Here is a translated description of the tecnology:

ECOFA is a new fuel, which due to its origin, its production, and its solution to the inherent problems in any kind of organic waste, specially the urban solid waste, it is called ‘eco.combustible’ adding FA (initials of Francisco Angulo) in honor of its discoverer.

Ecofa biofuel is a subgroup of biofuels that comes from fatty acids biosynthesized from microbes and to used it in current internal combustion engines and diesel

It is based on the metabolism’s bionatural principle, by mean of which all living organisms, including bacteria, produce fatty acids. The great contribution of Francisco Angulo’s patents, this is why its incalculable economic value, is exactly that this principle is used to the biofuel’s production and comes from the carbon of any organic waste.

The microorganisms that synthesize useful products for men represent, at most, a few hundred species among the more than 100,000 described in Nature. The few that have been useful for industry are valuated for procuding a substance that can not be achieved easily or cheaply by other methods. Next it is going to be explained the advantages that ECOFA has with regard current biodiesel:

* Almost the whole solution to the problem that exists in municipalities with the treatment and storage of domestic rubbish. Moreover, the process produces methane gas and it is also left a remain that could be used as organic fertilizer for fields.
* It would not be necessary to used specific fields of maize, wheat, barley, beets, etc.. which would remain for human consume without creating distortions or famines with unforeseeable consequences.
* So, it would be possible that farmers had to use less plowing , so the field could recover, in a natural way, the lost carbon ( agriculture’s conservation).
* The monocultures’s productions are always more favourable to pests, as it is not spread (because it is not only used to biodiesel ) the risk is lower
* Possibility for town halls of the autonomous processing in its own plants that will generate and will bring wealth to rural populations. The production would be mainly in consumption’s towns, so it would not be necessary pipelines, nor ships sailing with cargo that could be poured into the sea, since the producing plants are not very complex nor expensive and any town can install it without too much complications.
* According to the environment, the use of RSU (Solid Urban Waste) for energy production, is expected to present some added benefits of those that already exist in biofuels. Particularly with regard to smells, the improve of the landscapes and the reduction of pollution in the air, water and soil.
* Finally this microbial technique can be extended to other organic debris, plants or animals, such as those contained in the urban sewage. You can even experiment with other materials such as carbon sources, and this opens up a lot of possibilities; it is only necessary to find out the appropriate bacteria and make them work as a huge army of workers without pay, eating letfovers without stopping, as they reproduce by cloning and therefore bringing more and more quantity of ecocombustible.

CONCLUSION ABOUT ECOFA

ECOFA by their origins, already would represent a first relief to three problems that we suffer nowadays:

* urban solid waste, that would benefit mainly the town halls which have to suffer the logistical problems
* contribution of its share to the supply of the general fuel’s demand .
* and contribution of its share to the solution of climate change problem

But there are also other connotations as important:

* Its production does not cause famine, on the contrary it would generate wealth in the areas of production. Town halls would be again favoured
* As biotechnology takes part in it, and the yeasts and bacteria produce the process, it does not require the input of energy or heat, that others need, so it is also highly worthwhile in terms of its energy balance. Bacteria do not consume energy from others while they are working
* As the biotehconology is the responsible, bacteria and yeast, due to their metabolism, produce fatty acid from any carbon source, including all the organic waste, since it can be done at any stage with the appropiate bacterium: sewage, waste of slaughterhouses, remains and stubble of the field, paper, gauze and cotton (from hospitals, for example) and any other organic waste.
* It is not renewable but multirenewable, since (CO2) that comes from its combustion, leads to the growth of any kind of plants which they do not have to be used to produce biofuels, they might also come in useful for a food cycle and / or biological, leading to organic debris of any kind.
* It is also multisustainable. Obviously, this is due to the diverse origins of organic waste, the logistics of ECOFA’ s raw material , can come from any rubbish and from any place on the planet.

The origin is in some patent, whose owner is Francisco Angulo Lafuente, that support biotechnological processes in order to achieve a fuel from remains and organic waste.

Francisco Angulo

http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article .jsp?article_id=3225

http://earthtoys.com/emagazine.php?issue _number=09.04.01&article=angu&id=

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/eco logy/how-to-turn-garbage-into-biofuel/40 67

]]>
By: steve http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/28/new-fuel-standards-arent-as-tough-as-they-look/#comment-15892 Sun, 31 May 2009 22:25:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3740#comment-15892 fuel standards seem to be the wrong approch.
if u dropped the state and fed smog regs, and rebooted the with the euro standard for emmisions quantity not so much quality, all else would happen.
the US auto fleet has not improved much (if at all)in the last twenty years, reducing the need for new cars.
allow the small light euro style high MPG cars to be made and sold here, and u will be providing what the people have wanted for the last thirty years.

]]>
By: Brian Bigelow http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/28/new-fuel-standards-arent-as-tough-as-they-look/#comment-15859 Sun, 31 May 2009 05:09:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3740#comment-15859 In a couple of years $4 per gallon will be seen as cheap gas. Why, because we’ve already reached peak oil production. Decreasing amounts are coming from Alaska and numerous countries. Come to think of it, Bahrain ran out of oil a few years ago.
No matter what the government sets for CAFE standards the fact is more efficient vehicles are coming. Personally, I’m foreseeing an entire sea change coming when it comes to the automobile and society.

]]>
By: The Bell http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/28/new-fuel-standards-arent-as-tough-as-they-look/#comment-15843 Sat, 30 May 2009 19:54:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3740#comment-15843 Two words: Audi A2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_A2

]]>
By: Bob in Ramsey http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/28/new-fuel-standards-arent-as-tough-as-they-look/#comment-15722 Fri, 29 May 2009 16:10:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3740#comment-15722 Diana, you’re an economist. How about:
1. We get rid of the EPA, CAFE, NHTSA and all other government interference in auto market, which should be a free market.
2. We refuse to bail out failing car companies, and –
3. Let the market decide! You would see the American auto industry quickly recover, as well as all related industries (steel, petroleum, insurance, financing…)
Just a thought.

]]>
By: B.Free http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/28/new-fuel-standards-arent-as-tough-as-they-look/#comment-15700 Fri, 29 May 2009 14:41:19 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3740#comment-15700 Jeff, I agree.

Jeyyrd, we could debate but it would be pointless in this forum.

Relating to this forum: The real issue is the current administration should be encouraging the auto industry to develop alternatives that will:

get us off of oil
reduce emissions
avoid toxic waste that will become a ecological issue in the future
cost less over a 10 year life cycle than today’s vehicles
minimize the burden on the current electric grid
utilize solar and energy recapture technologies

Creating a MPG goal still buys into oil based or at least a liquid fuel based transportation industry. The US consumer should be fed up with the auto industry and its games. We are paying through the nose now for those games with bailouts and high gas prices. The reason the auto industry collapsed is because it was built on these games and not on sound competition. I gag every time I hear that these new innovative vehicles will cost the US consumer. More than what we already have paid??? That is just crazy. All that tells us is that the bail out money was just thrown away along with all that money we have been spending on planned obsolescence over the years. It has enriched a few but has done nothing for our society. In my original post I inserted a link regarding a British auto company that with $2.4 million in R&D developed a diesel sports car that can do 0 to 60 in less that 5 seconds with a top speed of 200mph that gets 100 MPG. I wonder how much we could have done with the billions in auto industry bail out money.

This administration campaigned on change. I haven’t seen much of that yet. And yes, I voted for Obama. If he can’t move Congress then he needs to come to the people directly

]]>
By: Ken http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/28/new-fuel-standards-arent-as-tough-as-they-look/#comment-15689 Fri, 29 May 2009 13:25:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3740#comment-15689 The fact is that none of this has to happen. We have huge amounts of fossil fuels left in the U.S., including coal (from which gasoline can be made), petroleum (especially if we start drilling offshore) and CNG (compressed natural gas.

We can achieve energy independence in the U.S., and stop importing all the oil we now import – correct our balance of payments, and have plenty of domestic fossil fuel energy……..

IF THE GREEN GESTAPO WOULD QUIT LYING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND START LETTING US DRILL FOR OUR OWN NEARLY INEXHAUSTIBLE FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY SOURCES.

There is no “GREEN ENERGY”. That is another lie. NO ONE has any idea how to make green energy that does not at least TRIPLE our energy costs.

The “Green Gestapo” is ruining our country, our economy, and our standard of living.

They must be stopped.

]]>
By: R. Ashton http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/28/new-fuel-standards-arent-as-tough-as-they-look/#comment-15650 Fri, 29 May 2009 01:35:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3740#comment-15650 The problem with the writer’s column is that Edmunds is WRONG. Edmunds says a 35 mpg CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) number translates to only a 26 mpg EPA average. This is false. I cannot give you an exact figure, but the CAFE and the EPA numbers in the real world will be very close, much closer than 9 mpg. Perhaps 2 mpg. So Obama’s new fuel standards are actually quite promising for the environment, and yet still achievable.
If you actually look at the CAFE average today, and look a the mix of cars out there, and know about what real MPG you would get in those cars is, you will see that the CAFE average is pretty close to the real world average mpg. I rent new cars all the time, and I found that of the more than 100 cars I’ve rented recently, only the Ford Focus (which was otherwise an excellent car) got significantly worse mpg than predicted.
I do not know why the souce, Edmunds, is wrong, but they are. Double check with another source, you will see that I am right.
but

]]>
By: jerryd http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/28/new-fuel-standards-arent-as-tough-as-they-look/#comment-15648 Fri, 29 May 2009 01:24:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3740#comment-15648 That’s sad. I was worried that the new rating would be a scam. But it won’t matter as whether or not gas prices are heading way up.

What we need is a oil tax to pay the subsidies direct and indirect we now pay in our income taxes. 50% should go to a payroll tax break and the rest to help those switching to more eff cars.

I don’t worry myself because I drive and build EV’s that get 250-600mpg fuel cost equivalent.

We have the batteries, they are just waiting for orders. But I use lead batts with composite bodies/chassis and get 100 mile range and 80 mph with much more of each optional.

Baker Electric had 45mph, 110 mile range EV’s in 1911!! Some like Jay Leno’s still have some of the original Edison/NiFE batteries.

Flywheels will not fly as they cost too much and too many handling problems.

Li batts with 200-400 mile range are the future and they already cost less than sealed lead batteries.

Add to Li batts composite body/chassis will be the future as gas prices will be $6-9/gal in 4 yrs.

]]>
By: Jeff Henster http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/28/new-fuel-standards-arent-as-tough-as-they-look/#comment-15629 Thu, 28 May 2009 22:06:25 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3740#comment-15629 B. Free:
Like I say, the jury’s out for me for flywheel energy storage for cars, but what you mention sound like feasible technical solutions to the two problems I thought of. (Counter rotation is used for a related problem in aircraft, for example) I have a special respect for things that turn around really fast. The other thing is it will depend a lot on how much energy is intended to be stored, which will determine the density of the spinner and the speed at which it rotates.

For sure, just focussing on electric cars with batteries almost sounds like one of those preconceived notions engineered by lobbyists (remember corn ethanol??). Any of these proposals needs a full energy audit, which not only includes the fuel burned, but all the energy and resources used up to manufacture and dispose of it at the end of its life. I would speculate that if one did that on a typical hybrid, it wouldn’t be more energy efficient than say just a basic diesel car, maybe not even more than a standard gasoline powered one.

]]>