[Terrapreta] [Gasification] FUELS AND VEHICLES: ANINTEGRATEDSOLUTION
Biopact
biopact at biopact.com
Thu May 22 03:36:09 CDT 2008
Why electric bikes? The ordinary human powered bike is much more efficient.
Human stomachs, bowels and our metabolisms have undergone hundreds of
thousands of years of evolution to become rather efficient at converting
food into energy; our muscles and our skeletal make-up is also quite
brilliant in its simplicity and highly efficient at using the sugars in our
bloodstream to generate muscle power.
If you were to make a full lifecycle analysis, I'm sure the bicycle powered
by legs, arms and backs beats electric bikes hands down.
But okay :-) Agreed with the main point; best way to use biomass would be to
pyrolyse it, sequester the char in soils and use the pyrolysis oil (straight
or after some processing step) in some efficient fuel cell system to
generate power and heat. Direct Carbon Fuel Cells would be nice.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary Lehmann" <mlehmann3 at austin.rr.com>
To: "Roger Samson" <rsamson at reap-canada.com>
Cc: "'terrapreta group'" <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>; "'Discussion of
biomass pyrolysis and gasification'" <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] [Gasification] FUELS AND VEHICLES:
ANINTEGRATEDSOLUTION
I use a bike mostly. I visited China when that was true of their
city dwellers too. After enough polluted air and traffic jams,
they'll go back to bikes, and they'll have company --eventually. ML
On May 21, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Roger Samson wrote:
>
> Yes mass urban transit is looking like a bit of a crappy (yes not very
> scientific word either) strategy to reduce energy ..quite scary
> http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm
> In china they now have 10's of million of electric bicycles, that’s
> the best
> way to move people and reduce energy consumption
> electric bicycles are the most sustainable urban transport options
> after
> shanks pony (for all you youngsters that’s means walking)
>
> we need to gasify biomass for heat and power and then use electric
> bikes and
> small electric cars for a more sustainable transport option. Much
> better
> than liquid biofuels running conventional sized vehicles or big public
> transit buses
>
> Roger Samson
>
> 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: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:17 PM
> To: Mary Lehmann
> Cc: terrapreta group; Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] [Terrapreta] FUELS AND VEHICLES: AN
> INTEGRATEDSOLUTION
>
> Funny you should say that.
>
> One of the local news stations did a study to see if it would be
> possable to
> ditch the car and take the bus, and reported on it last night.
>
> Local price of fuel - $3.66 / gal
> Local price of a bus ticket ( one way ) - $1.50
>
> Going from the news station to the baseball stadium during evening
> rush hour
> cost $1.50, requires 2 transfers and 3 buses
>
> A reporter and a photojournalist decided to take to trip one using his
> vehicle the other the bus from the same starting point leaving at
> the same
> time.
>
> Time they both left the bus top near the station was 4:43 ( had the
> rider of
> the bus missed it, the next bus would not have been by until 5:54 ).
>
> The time the driver took in the POV arrived at the stadium was 30
> minutes,
> with the consumption of .64 gal of gas for a cost of $2.36 per person
>
> The time it took the rider on the bus was 1:05 for the cost of
> $1.50 ( what
> we don't know is the average number of people on the busses or what
> kind of
> mileage they get, but it can be logically assumed that they don't
> get but
> more than about 8-10 mpg )
>
> A difference of $0.86 and 40 minutes.
>
> At first glance this looks fairly good -
>
> OTOH assuming they both stayed and watch a ballgame, the driver of
> the car,
> would have made the return trip in about 20 minutes and a
> corresponding
> decrease in fuel consumption due to lack of traffic, and the rider
> of the
> bus would have had to either walk back or get a taxi, because the
> busses
> don't run that late. We also don't know how many miles per gal /
> per
> person the busses get, yet I know for a fact that on many routes
> they run
> almost empty except during the busiest times of day. - I also know
> that this
> is true of many types of mass transit in many cities across the US.
>
> Riders on the bus, that used the bus to get to and from work, told the
> photojournalist, that they have to leave home up to 1 hr earlier in
> the day
> to ensure that they get to work on time and about the same coming
> home in
> the evening - assuming they didn't miss the bus and that it was
> running on
> schedule.
>
> Locally it doesn't matter where you are going, it's going to take
> at least
> twice as long to take the bus as it is in a POV, and that's
> assuming that
> you caught the right one and that they are running on schedule.
>
> Last year there was a time when one of our vehicles was in the shop
> for
> work, and since I needed the only other one we had for the kids, my
> wife
> tried to take the bus. It worked out that she needed 2 hrs in
> the morning
> and 2 hrs in the evening to go and from work, which was only 15-20
> min away
> in a POV.
>
> Now if your time is worth $1 an hour ( or less ) - then the bus
> would make
> perfect sense, from a fuel, time and cost efficiency stand point.
>
> If your time is worth more than $1 / hr, the total efficiency is
> with the
> personal automobile.
>
>
> In the end, it all comes down to the fact that different places have
> different transportation systems and each has to be evaluated on
> it's own
> merits, and don't forget that while it varies with each bus, unless
> each bus
> is running proximity 1/2 full, then it is getting poorer mileage than
> someone driving an old pickup.
>
> The entire idea that mass transit is a cure all answer for all
> places and
> all individuals, is phony.
>
>
> Greg H.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mary Lehmann
> To: Benjamin Domingo Bof
> Cc: terrapreta group ; Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and
> gasification ;
> killer_ape-peak_oil at yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:00
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] FUELS AND VEHICLES: AN INTEGRATED SOLUTION
>
>
> This effort is sad to see, however well intentioned it is,
> because in the
> first place the need to use less energy has been confused with energy
> efficiency. If my car gets extra miles to the gallon, what is to
> keep me
> from driving more miles? This is like that phoney drive to add
> wider, faster
> roads to shorten commuter time. People just moved farther out.
>
>
> In the second place, no account has been taken of the fact that
> there will
> not be the available energy to make the passenger cars, compared
> with the
> energy economy of mass transit vehicles. As the energy shortage
> gets worse
> (yes, before it gets better, if you like), manufacturers and
> finally the
> public will be unwilling to forego mass transit vehicles. We will
> be like
> the Easter Islanders opposing burning the last trees which should
> be saved
> for making boats in which to move away.
>
>
> Mary Lehmann
> ====================================================================
>
> On May 16, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Benjamin Domingo Bof wrote:
>
>
>
> Fuels and vehicles: an integrated solution
>
> The use of fossil fuels in transport creates enormous
> greenhouse
> gas emissions. In Canada, in fact, cars and trucks produce more
> than 30% of
> all GHG emissions. To make meaningful progress in reducing GHGs,
> we must
> address the transport sector. Individually, advanced new transport
> fuels
> and vehicle technologies contribute to GHG emission reductions.
> However,
> the most effective way to reduce CO2 in transport is through an
> approach
> which integrates both vehicles and fuels.
> To achieve this, both vehicles and fuel manufacturers are
> spending
> billions of dollars to develop and deliver cleaner, more efficient
> systems
> that use less gasoline. But typically, vehicle and fuel solutions are
> looked at in separate silos.
> Historical Agreement Made in 2006: Volkswagen, Shell and
> Iogen
> are Combining Fuel and Vehicle Technologies for an Integrated Solution
> On January 8, 2006, Volkswagen, Shell and Iogen signed a
> letter of
> intent to conduct a study into the economic feasibility of producing
> cellulose ethanol in Germany.
>
> Left to right: Rob Routs, Executive Director Downstream
> (Oil
> Products and Chemicals) Royal Dutch Shell; Brian Foody, President,
> Iogen
> Corporation; Dr. Bernd Pischetsrieder, Chairman of the Board of
> Management
> of Volkswagen AG.
> This marks the first time that an automotive manufacturer
> has
> partnered with an oil company and a technology company to explore the
> commercialization opportunity of clean transport fuel such as
> cellulose
> ethanol. Volkswagen, Shell and Iogen face a common challenge to
> deliver
> mobility to people through the cars they drive and the fuels they
> use, and
> to do it in a sustainable way. And the biggest challenge for
> sustainability
> is dealing with CO2 emissions. By working together, the three
> organizations
> are committed to meeting our sustainability challenges through an
> integrated
> approach that uses the most cost effective solutions first.
> Cellulose ethanol is one of the fuel options that:
> a.. reduces overall CO2 emissions from vehicles
> b.. runs in today's cars without any need for automobile
> modifications or changes to the fuel distribution system and
> c.. is economical in comparison with all alternatives
> including
> many vehicle technology solutions
> Running any of the many available flexible fuel vehicles on
> cellulose ethanol E85 is one of the most cost effective ways to
> reduce GHG
> emissions in transport. Currently, there are more than 4 million
> FFVs on
> the road in the United States. Even running today's regular
> vehicles on a
> blend of 10% cellulose ethanol will reduce GHGs by close to 10
> grams of CO2
> for every kilometre driven.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
> Tarjeta de crédito Yahoo! de Banco Supervielle. Solicitá tu nueva
> Tarjeta de crédito. De tu PC directo a tu casa.
> Visitá www.tuprimeratarjeta.com.ar
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> --
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1459 - Release Date: 21/05/2008
17:34
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list