RE: Research Topics

["Ugoretz, Steven M" <UgoreS@mail01.dnr.state.wi.us>]

The simple fact is that societies, and their political expressions through
laws and policies, do not run on the bare bones of "pure" economics.
Governments use taxes , other incentives such as research and development
subsidies, and a multitude of other means to implement policy objectives.

The question is really whether there is enough political will to implement
those measures.  That, somewhat unfortunately, comes down to who stands to
benefit or lose economically and politically from that policy.  Biomass
energy, broadly defined,has some powerful friends on the agricultural side,
but perhaps not a clearly defined power bloc in the other
feedstocks/processes.

It may take a certain "critical mass" of business interests, environmental
advocates, farm groups, and urban consumers willing to pay  a bit more
through green power programs to really kick start biomass as a significant
contributor to this country's energy supply.  Maybe a few more oil embargos
would help too, for that matter.  There also has to be that critical
infrastructure to make, transport, and sell the products.  That too doesn't
appear overnight, and may have some political costs:  nobody likes big
pipelines regardless of whether they're transporting petroleum products,
natural gas, or a biofuel.

It all seems to come down to education, persistance, R D &D efforts, and
suitable policies (including incentives of all kinds) to push the industry
into commercial viability.

I guess the bottom line is keep plugging away on all fronts, and eventually
things will start happening.  You can see that with the wind industry in
Europe and this country, so we know it's possible.

> ----------
> From: 	Weststeijn, Andries[SMTP:Andries.Weststeijn@essent.nl]
> Sent: 	Thursday, April 18, 2002 6:52 AM
> To: 	'Harry W. Parker'; Carefreeland@aol.com; anouk@shaw.ca
> Cc: 	bioenergy@crest.org
> Subject: 	RE: Research Topics
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Next to available financing (mentioned by Dimiduk) and inherent costs
> (mentioned by Parker), their is something like political will. About how
> choices are made in society, as simple as that: what is valued and what is
> not. And perhaps more important, different societies appear to work with a
> different time scale.
> If Kendall (starting this thread) inquires about barriers, it implies that
> it is to be valued that these will be overcome.
> Now, then:
> a)if society elects that only the market ought to do it, the cheap
> alternatives need to run out first.
> b)if society elects that the market is to be "helped", the cheap
> alternatives are to be made artificially more expensive.
> c)if society elects that new technologies are to be stimulated in their
> own
> right, that's an option as well.
> 
> Three observations if I may.
> 
> Point one: meaningful worldwide cooperation on energy issues IS and WILL
> BE
> in order.
> 
> Clearly it can be seen that regions as close as both sides of the Atlantic
> (I am writing from the EU) take a different view of the choices a-b-c
> above.
> I.e. apply a different mix. Nothing wrong as long as the consequences
> remain
> limited to the particular region. However, that is not and will not be the
> case. Neither in terms of competition for and upward price pressure on
> fossil fuels, nor in terms of worldwide emissions and its consequences.
> 
> Point two: develop insight into the break even competitive position of the
> biomass conversion options as a function of price WITHOUT getting hung up
> so
> much on the time frame (which is determined by external conditions
> anyway).
> 
> How does this translate to biomass research?
> I believe the discussion on desired biomass-for-energy research should not
> be so much concentrated on WHEN fossil fuels run out (they will eventually
> anyway), or on how FAST or to what EXTENT greenhouse effects are
> influenced
> by man (that's not our main area of expertise), but rather under what
> conditions certain biomass-for-energy options will prevail. Perhaps
> foremost
> as a function of price level of the competing (fossil) energy resource. 
> This way the knowledge derived is decoupled from the time line debate and
> can remains valid irregardless of when the competitive conditions appear
> (10
> or 20 years sooner or later doesn't matter much).
> 
> Point three: stimulate internal rivalry among biomass options development
> by
> comparing options on the basis of a scenario of EQUAL EXTERNAL conditions.
> Regionally these conditions could be readjusted, if so desired,
> group-wise.
> 
> Nationally and internationally a portfolio of biomass-for-energy options
> could be rated (from high potentials to low) as a function of competitive
> pricing. This would provide insight into the relative competition position
> among the biomass options themselves and provide a clear stimulance "to
> beat
> the next higher option".
> Obviously, this only would work for pre-competitive research and for
> non-commercial project examples.
> But then, competitive research knowledge about barriers and how to
> overcome
> them would be quite proprietary anyway, so never be discussed openly in
> the
> first place.
> 
> 
> I realize this answer is not about ethanol molecules or improved heat
> rates.
> It is intended to be about searching for promising research topics by way
> of
> world-wide biomass topic rating (for potential) on a predetermined equal
> footing.
> 
> best,
> Andries Weststeijn
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry W. Parker [mailto:Harry.Parker@ttu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 12:20 PM
> To: Carefreeland@aol.com; anouk@shaw.ca; bioenergy@crest.org
> Subject: Re: Research Topics
> 
> 
> Hello all
> 
> "I think the progress of BIOFUELS on a global basis is primarily held
> up by the same thing holding up most progress, that is, money." Daniel
> Dimiduk, e-mail to bioenergy group, 4-17-02
> 
> No, biofuels are held-up by their own inherent high cost relative to
> petroleum.  The price of petroleum has not changed in over 70 years or
> more
> when inflation is considered, and it probably will not change except for
> political spikes in price until world oil production peaks, which I have
> predicted for 2035, not 2009 as others have predicted.   When petroleum is
> gone we can gasify coal with pure O2 at high pressure and so have a
> relatively pure byproduct stream of CO2 that can be sequestered.  This
> gasification process is a proven commercial process.  The Texaco gasifier
> as
> used by Eastman Chemical Company to make acetic anhydride in Kingsport
> Tenn.
> Many companies are piloting natural gas to liquids processes now which is
> less costly process than using coal.  We have a "200yr" supply of coal
> 
> I have given references to my recent publications on the above topics
> below:
> 
> 
> Parker, H.W.,  "Demand, supply will determine when world oil output
> peaks,"
> Oil and Gas Journal, pp. 40-48. Feb. 25, (2002).
> 
> Parker, H. W., "After Petroleum is Gone, What Then?", pp. 70-76,  World
> Oil,
> Houston, TX, Sept. (2001).
> 
> Harry
> 
> Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
> Professor of Chemical Engineering
>   & Consulting Engineer
> Texas Tech University
> Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
> 806.742.1759 fax 742.3552
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Bioenergy List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/200202/
> 
> Bioenergy List Moderator:
> Tom Miles,  tmiles@trmiles.com
> List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>
> 
> Sponsor the Bioenergy List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Bioenergy Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
> 
> -
> Bioenergy List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/200202/
> 
> Bioenergy List Moderator:
> Tom Miles,  tmiles@trmiles.com
> List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>
> 
> Sponsor the Bioenergy List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Bioenergy Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
> 

-
Bioenergy List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/200202/

Bioenergy List Moderator:
Tom Miles,  tmiles@trmiles.com
List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Bioenergy List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Bioenergy Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon