Pellet stove

Page 3 of 10  
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Well, Vet science was done at second tier places for a long time, University of Queensland had vet science and a cat and dog hospital. Ag engineering was pretty much all imported from the UK, milling and grain was certificate level stuff run out of the TAFE/Ag College layer.
I seem to recall that most Vets had a certificate (like a trade qualification) until well within my lifetime.
Universities have acquired big Ag Science areas at remote campuses in the last 10 years or so of forced amalgamations.

DPI handled stuff "in house" until it was gutted about 10 years ago.

The Wheat Board was a "single desk" export co-op. The US-Australia FTA has pretty much gutted it.

Ah, we've been growing things like Durum wheat here. Queenlands wheatbelt is in warm temperate and subtropical climates.

Our combines have been evolving pretty fast.

The modern varieties put biomass into leaf formation and grain, little stalk, suspect they are two to three times the mass per plant of the earlier varities. Then there are forage crops, which are almost all leaf.
....Brock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

From my perspective, that's incomprehensible... :)
....

Who/what is DPI? .... ....

But there is a lot of hard white and red wheat grown as well somewhere down there--otherwise we wouldn't be fighting so hard for market export share... :) Duram is a spring wheat in the US grown in the northern areas as a summer crop...
...

No faster than those here, I'm sure. :) Actually, that raises an interesting question--is most of your ag equipment designed/built there or is it from somewhere else, perhaps adapted to specific conditions?
Typical new machine for us--
http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/FR/category/printableversion/FR_COMBINES_printableVersion.html
One difference w/ us may be that we're all dryland in rain-limited areas so that a variety which reaches 2 ft in trials where the rainfall is adequate probably won't make that in most years for us. Add to that the shorter than average heads and one is running the header on the ground to avoid missing some heads.
....

Which was precisely my point which seems to contradict your earlier post to which I responded, thus starting off this most interesting sub-thread.... :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth wrote:

By "us" here I mean our specific situation (which is pretty representative of a lot of US production but certainly not universal), not us in the sense of all US producers...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Kind of like doing a nursing course at a hospital (Australia moved to University bases nursing training only in the last 10 or 15 years) as opposed to getting a degree in medicine.

Department of Primary Industries, each State has one.

Possibly in the far south of Western Australia. The US doesn't export, it dumps, when it has surplusses, it undercuts us, then often can't deliver in later years at any price. We can't do the same, the US complains to the WTO. Also the US sunsidises farmers, we don't. And they subsidise exports, we don't do that either.

The main chasis come from the US. Europe, China, but working gear is usually added here. Very small market, for medium to large machines mostly.

http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/FR/category/printableversion/FR_COMBINES_printableVersion.html
We trial in the ares we grow, our farmers don't trust glossy books without seeing a few hectares growin in their district. Good source of income for those with highway frontage, grow sample crops with bigs signs up...
....Brock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

Funny how one's point of view depends on locale...that's the exact thing I hear here, almost to the identical words.... :) ....

You misunderstood...that's pretty much the same here as well. No producer will commit an entire planting to any single hybrid nor would anyone change from their previous experience all at once...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If it's cropland, it's growing crops. That takes some amount of carbon out of the air. It is yet to be shown that converting cropland (or non-crop greenspace) to fuel-corn increases the amount of carbon sucked out of the air by exactly the amount of carbon pumped INTO the air by burning the fuel-part, and that's what you have to show for it to be "carbon-nuetral" by one definition. (by another definition, you'd have to show only that burning the corn-oil releases the same amont of carbon that the plant concentrated in the first place. Obviously this can be true only if you use the entire plant for fuel. Which we don't, and probably won't) By neither definition is there any particular reason to believe that bio-fuel is actually carbon nuetral.
But carbon nuetrality isn't what we care about, anyway. A simplified model is that we burn a certain amount of carbon-fuel, adding that much carbon to the atmosphere (F) If that fuel comed from corn-oil (or whatever) then we have a certain amount of land growing corn, which will suck a certain amount or carbon OUT of the air. Call that (C). If, on the other hand, we get our fuel from dead dinosaurs, then the land that WOULD be growing corn will instead grow something else, and that something else will suck a different amount of carbon out of the air. Call that (D)
The question that MATTERS is whether C > D.
My suspicion is that we'dd end up with less carbon in the air if we go ahead and keep burning dead dinosaurs, and use the cropland to produce things that permanantly remove carbon, like CAF panels, construction-lumber, and pencil-leads.

I'm not sure that that matters. The ratio of the useful part of the plant to the non-useful part goes up. Which part has more carbon in it? probably the part that makes good fuel. It's quite possible (even likely) that the new varieties actually INCREASE the carbon-per-acre.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Goedjn wrote:

All green plants get all their carbon from the air in a process called photosynthesis.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle2.html
This means all biofuels derived from plants get all their carbon from the air. This means when you burn biofuels and release that carbon all of it came from a plant which took it out of the air in the first place.
This means that all biofuels are carbon neutral by definition. It's an indisputable fact, a truism. It's so obvious that people don't have to keep proving it every time the use the term.
Anthony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mail.uri.edu (Goedjn) says...

Sort of. It is pointless to grow a large amount of biomass without preserving it, since the decay process releases all the carbon back into the atmosphere. Even large biomass crops, like timber, reach CO2 equilibrium in only a few decades. Building materials sequester a lot of carbon, not only in the lumber, but in cellulose insulation and other manufactured wood products.
Unfortunately, the biosphere just doesn't have the capability of scrubbing all the fossil fuel carbon out of the atmosphere. You would have to cover all the arable land on the planet with crops, and then not allow those crops to decompose, in order to keep up with the release of carbon from coal burning.
Most of the fossil carbon on the earth takes the form of carbonate fossils, like limestone, marble and chalk, which are fairly inert. Little sea critters are still laying down their fossil shells, and over the long run will remove all the carbon we are dumping into the atmosphere.
--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air, it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.
So the open question is whether growing corn for fuel REMOVES more carbon from the air than would have been removed had you not grown corn for fuel.
If you burn one ton of carbon in the form of dead dinosaurs, that puts one ton of carbon in the air, if you burn one ton of carbon in the form of corn-oil, that ALSO puts one tone of carbon in the air. If you grow a ton-s worth of carbon-bearing corn, and then burn it. The net effect on the atmosphere is zero. If you grow one ton's worth of carbon bearing corn and DON'T burn it, the net effect is minus one ton. How much carbon is in the parts of the corn that you don't burn? How much carbon is in whatever would be growing there if you weren't growing fuel-corn?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Goedjn wrote:

If I grow one ton of corn and burn it, I am not burning the equivalent BTU in petroleum based oil. Therfore my energy consumption is carbon neutral.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left over after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn the grain itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as a fuel? Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for example is a very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has been used in the past as a heating fuel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

ethanol, and animal feed all from the same bushel.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Spence wrote:

The other answer in part to SixPack's question is simply convenience--it's far easier to handle the grain than the rest of the plant....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Corn is rarely grown for it's oil. A typical kernel of corn has 7-7.5% oil content. Other crops are far better for this, such as oilseeds like canola, which has 40-50% oil content. The remainder of the seed is a high-quality animal feed. Where optimal conditions exist, canola can produce 500Kg of oil per acre, or 17,000 gallons of crude canola oil per square mile. The vast majority of available acres are far from optimal, so a much lower yield figure is reasonable.
Using a realistic yield of 10,000 gallons per sq mile, the economics are still a long way from feasible, compared to other fuel options. The production costs alone for a square mile of canola is approximately $25,000 US. Add to this, estimated processing and distribution costs of another $25,000, and the net consumer price for a typical gallon of biofuel canola oil is likely to exceed $7 US. I'd say we have to experience a lot more petroleum price increases for this to be a feasible alternative.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

I'd extend that to say corn is never grown solely for its oil, but corn oil is a significant product--where would MickeyD be w/o it, for example? :)
Q. What can be extracted from a bushel of corn? A. The wet milling process yields approximately 31.5 pounds of starch, which can be further processed into 33 pounds of sweetener or 2.5 gallons of ethanol. In addition, 13.5 pounds of corn gluten feed, 2.5 pounds of corn gluten meal and 1.6 pounds of corn oil can be extracted.

The extractable oil is in the germ and that seems a little high to me, but in the ballpark, certainly.
Other crops are far better for this, such as oilseeds like canola,

At present, production costs for corn ethanol are lower than the going price for gasoline and one would only expect that to continue to favor alternate fuel sources in the long-range future. Last I saw was something around $1.20-$1.30 for the raw material. Processing costs were on the order of $0.30 iirc, so net delivered cost is something in the near $2/gal range--significantly less than $3 gasoline. I know processing costs have escalated some owing to higher energy costs, but don't have any new data to know the overall impact.
Some area stations had E85 at nearly a full $1 less than regular unleaded...
While I expect there to be a significant drop in oil prices to near pre-Katrina prices and probably approaching $40/bbl again for a short time in a year or so, the <$30/bbl days are gone forever in all likelihood.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The only reason corn ethanol is that cheap is because of massive, overlapping subsidies on both growing the corn and in processing it for ethanol. A recent study found that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol contains.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

bogus: http://www.green-trust.org/2005/07/is-ethanol-sustainable.html
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

Ethanol production subsidies have no bearing on the production cost of the grain which is currently about $2/bu for feed corn--that used for ethanol production doesn't need to be that good, even.
The "massive" farm program subsidies are more used for non-production programs such as school lunch programs and food stamps.
The "study" of which you speak is both out of date in data and wrong--see
http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/net_energy_balance.html
for a more considered evaluation. Note that Pimental has consistently not considered the value of the animal feedstock co-product in order to make his conclusion in all studies I've seen.
Latest DOE studies vary from 1.3 to nearly 2, depending on the actual processes considered...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

You do realize corn oil is available it the grocery store .....
Corn is a good crop because it's commonly grown, it can be pressed for oil, and mashed for ethanol, plus the distillers grains are used for animal feed, so it has many by products.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So is olive, palm, sunflower, safflower, peanut, canola, fish, lard, and about a hundred others. What's your point?

Does that make it feasible as a replacement for petroleum fuel?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.