Why convert to electrical? Why not convert to heat a la wood pellets?

Sure, not many people have wood pellet stoves, but it isn't 2030 yet either. Furthermore, how much wood mass are we talking about here? I'd bet that it could be used to offset the heating requirements in northern North America and northern Europe [as well as southern South America] and in this way offset natural gas, heating oil, etc.

I suppose they think that we'll have far more biomass than that. They might be right. But in the mean time, wood pellets for home heating and for industrial use might offset a nice chunk of fossil fuels and it doesn't require much in the ways of technology advances; we could do it now.

The entire article is available at the link above. The authors conclude that 2.54 Gha (9.8 million mi^2) chosen to already get sufficient rainfall would be enough. That's about 16% of the entire land surface (57 million mi^2). Roughly 20% of land is mountainous or covered by snow and ice, and 30% is desert. There would be little other land on Earth that was not city, farm, or one of these energy plantations.

The amount of energy from that source is not enough to raise all of Earth's expected population of 10 billion by the year 2100 to a Western standard of living, even assuming a Japanese standard of energy efficiency.

richard:

It all depends on the assumptions made.

Will the 2100 world have 10 or closer to 15 billion people; use 2 or closer to 4 billion gas guzzlers or replace most gas guzzlers with electrified vehicles; use electric trains or more diesel buses and trucks; fight a new war every other year or live in peace; eat fruit and vegetables or red meat; recycle all garbage or keep on using garbage dumps; use electricity from wind, sun geothermals, hydro etc for heating and cooking or use synthetic and/or bio-gas; the quality and growth rate of the plants used and the process efficiency; etc etc?

By varying the asumptions, one may arrive at completely different land areas required.

... there would be problems that would arise with methanol as fuel and that the presently available Internal Combustion Engines would have to be modified to methanol-specific engines.

I understand some of the problems related to delivery (e.g., methanol is too hydrophilic for pipelines), but can't some flex-fuel vehicles run on methanol without further modification? Seems to me that there's a pretty straightforward transition path, since flex-fuel vehicles can run on both today's gasoline and tomorrow's methanol.

Obama seems to be on board, or at least was during the campaign when he proposed passing a law requiring that all new vehicles be flex-fuel. They could run on gasoline for a few years until they comprised a substantial enough percentage of cars on the road to support the deployment of methanol production and delivery.

Kit P

'Heating with wood is dirty and 'emissions' are dangerous'.

That is true of most wood stoves and fire places.

However, I must admit that wood pellet stoves or fire place inserts burn much more cleanly and create much less visible pollution.

High quality pellets are not cheap @ $200+/Ton. You need 4 to 8 Tons for an average house in north-eastern USA or Canada.

Well designed pellet stoves or inserts are equipped with automatic feeder and can take 40 to 100 lbs loads. It is still a hasle to manually load them up every few days in winter time. Ashes are reduced to about a liter per 50-lb pellet bag. Chimney requirement is reduced and similar to NG's size. Claimed efficiency is between 75% and 85%.

Unvisible pollution (toxic gases) are apparently similar to NG stoves and fire places depending on the pellets and stove quality.

Electric heat pumps + regular electric heaters and/or fire places can do a much better cleaner job at less cost, specially with Hydro-electricity at 6 to 8 cents per KWh.

Biomass transports long distances very well via 2 methods:

1. Biomass electrification CHP, with intermediate and long distance power transmission lines.

2. Biomass pyrolysis with transport of pyrolysis oil via pipeline or rail tanker to utilisation point. At that point gasification to CHP, or gasification to syngas to F-T synthesis etc. can take place.

Torrefaction of biomass to "bio-coal" for coal replacement or co-firing with coal for a cleaner burn, also makes for more mobile biomass. Also pelletisation or "cubification".

You need to know that small scale gasification CHP plants are available for local and regional use. Indian villages are using small scale gasification in pilot projects with good results for electrical and hot water. US military bases in Iraq are using gasification of garbage to supply base power and eliminate trash.

Eventually microbes will make all the fuel we need, in maybe 20 years. Gasification and pyrolysis work right now. The Earth is a lot more prolific biologically speaking than you might think.

What is "bio-mass CHP", or "CHP"??

I think methane not methanol is more versatile since it can be blended with natural gas, pumped long distances and is less toxic if spilled although a greenhouse gas. However I think a way is needed of producing it in the fields or forests without using hi tech or a lot of water. The residues can then be spread back on the soil. However that lo-tech small scale method doesn't appear to exist yet.

"It puts things into the right perspective."

How are out-of-context facts offered by Internet Amateur Scientists the right perspective?

Localization of integrated energy + production using low-impact coppice pruning and biomass co-products can provide all our energy needs at a fraction of our current energy use.

The problem with The Oil Drum and other such Y2K-esque sites is their total commitment to massive catastrophe and failure.

If you want to solve problems, you can't be committed to failure. Such rigid mindsets predispose persons to monolithic thinking. Once fixed in place, such thinking is extremely difficult to escape.

The rest of us need to think in terms of problem-solving, and let those who are committed to failure and doom steep in the simmer.

“The rest of us need to think in terms of problem-solving, and let those who are committed to failure and doom steep in the simmer.”

We have enough sustainable biomass to ready to turn into energy to keep all the problems solvers very busy. I presented a plan for 250 MWe of biomass over a 10 year period in several regions with several different kinds of technologies. The idea was to grow a workforce of problem solvers so we could get 250 MWe more of biomass over 5 years in each region.

The basic road block to such ideas is that 250 MWe of natural gas generation can be had in one year with few problems to solve. Past the fuel cost to the rate payers.

"The problem with The Oil Drum and other such Y2K-esque sites is their total commitment to massive catastrophe and failure."

It's funny but I've noticed a similar mindset in some AGW deniers. To them our support of a carbonfree future can only lead to massive catastrophe, doom and failure.

Alice is right! The inmates in the oil drum asylum are seated in a circle, mutually stimulating themselves to frantic distraction. It's a compulsion.