Bio-Fuels not so green

[Skull Pilot]

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/02/more-bad-news-f.html

The thrust of the study states that clearing land for the planting and harvesting of biofuel sources such as corn, soy, sugar cane etc actually causes more CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere; moreso than automobiles alone. The reason being that the land cleared is a more effective carbon sink and actually ties up more CO2 than the total reduction of CO2 seen by burning biofuels rather than petroleum.

 

[Taomon]

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/02/more-bad-news-f.html

The thrust of the study states that clearing land for the planting and harvesting of biofuel sources such as corn, soy, sugar cane etc actually causes more CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere; moreso than automobiles alone. The reason being that the land cleared is a more effective carbon sink and actually ties up more CO2 than the total reduction of CO2 seen by burning biofuels rather than petroleum.

We should be moving away from fossil fuels for two reasons...one to stop the acceleration of our atmosphere's deterioration and two to stop dependance on Muslim entities.

I don't think there is a one stop, be all end all solution. I think we have to go with multiple solutions.

One fore-runner is solar power. The next would be wind followed by hydro-power. MIT has been working with turning algea into fuel and that would probably solve two problems...fuel needs and algae cleanup.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We should be moving away from fossil fuels for two reasons...one to stop the acceleration of our atmosphere's deterioration and two to stop dependance on Muslim entities.

I don't think there is a one stop, be all end all solution. I think we have to go with multiple solutions.

One fore-runner is solar power. The next would be wind followed by hydro-power. MIT has been working with turning algea into fuel and that would probably solve two problems...fuel needs and algae cleanup.

i don't disagree with you but if this study is proven out, burning biofuels on the scale needed to reduce petroleum emissions would actually increase our atmospheric "deterioration" And in the U.S. at least only about 10 -15% of oil used comes from Muslim countries most of our oil comes from Canada

 

[Taomon]

i don't disagree with you but if this study is proven out, burning biofuels on the scale needed to reduce petroleum emissions would actually increase our atmospheric "deterioration" And in the U.S. at least only about 10 -15% of oil used comes from Muslim countries most of our oil comes from Canada

If that study is correct, then it would be a huge mistake to go with sugar and corn to replace petroluem & fossil fuels. But it doesn't mention algae, solar, wind & water.

Also, if we create feasible alternatives other countries will follow suit, meaning we will not need to meddle in the Middle East to control oil sales to China and Russia, which is what we are doing.

 

[Bern80]

If that study is correct, then it would be a huge mistake to go with sugar and corn to replace petroluem & fossil fuels. But it doesn't mention algae, solar, wind & water.

Also, if we create feasible alternatives other countries will follow suit, meaning we will not need to meddle in the Middle East to control oil sales to China and Russia, which is what we are doing.

I think you're both on different pages. Unless you think, solar and wind can be used as car fuel Tao, you seem to be talking about production of electricity, he seems to be talking about car fuel.

Ethanol is the biggest farce out there (although the fertilization of corn does create a lot of algae in the gulf). I would lean more toward Hydrogen or Nuclear. Nuclear would solve both issues.

 

[jillian]

I would lean more toward Hydrogen or Nuclear. Nuclear would solve both issues.

Unless, of course, your house is on three-mile island....

And let me know when they figure out how to dispose of the waste.

 

[Bern80]

Unless, of course, your house is on three-mile island....

And let me know when they figure out how to dispose of the waste.

Technology does and has improved over time where nuclear energy is concerned and is thus it is considerably safer. The waste to energy ratio should not be ignored.

 

[jillian]

Technology does and has improved over time where nuclear energy is concerned and is thus it is considerably safer. The waste to energy ratio should not be ignored.

But technology hasn't improved in this area. And even if the waste to energy ratio were better, we're still talking about nuclear waste being moved around the country in trucks -- huge security risk.

 

[Bern80]

But technology hasn't improved in this area. And even if the waste to energy ratio were better, we're still talking about nuclear waste being moved around the country in trucks -- huge security risk.

Where safety is concerned there most certainly have been improvements. Safety is the reason we aren't using more nuclear technology.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm

 

[jillian]

Safety is the reason we aren't using more nuclear technology.

Exactly my point.

 

[Bern80]

Exactly my point.

More accurately fear of the safety issues. Typically nuclear power conjurs up exactley what it did for you, memories of three mile island and chernobyl. The question is are those fears warranted, and based on the safety record of nuclear power plants and other nuclear devices, it isn't warranted. I probably wouldn't opt for nuclear powered cars, but there are very few legitimate concerns to converting to nuclear for production of electricity.

 

[Skull Pilot]

nuclear power probably should be expanded if for no other reason than to stop us from using coal for power until a truly renewable power source for electricity can be implemented.

for example the use of concentrating solar collectors to produce steam to drive turbines rather than coal produced steam. if we covered just 10% of the desert in the US with these collectors we could supply all the electric power the US needs. but alas it will never be done because we can't seem to get out of our own way on these matters.

but back to biofuels:

the obvious first step is to drive more efficient cars, not necessarily hybrids but simply more efficient. the next is to reduce consumption of all fossil fuels. it's pretty simple actually. for example a solar hot water heater, even in northern states can reduce gas, oil or electric use and therefore your costs by about 30%.

if we are going to use biofuels, lets make sure that the net effect is what we want. some alternatives to corn and other large scale harvest crops that seem to do more harm than good are nut based oils. since nut trees are not grown and harvested they are a much more efficient carbon sink than harvested crops where the leftovers actually release more carbon to the atmosphere than they reduce via the fuels produced with them.

 

[nukeman]

Unless, of course, your house is on three-mile island....

And let me know when they figure out how to dispose of the waste.

I always love it when this track is taken when it comes to Nulcear waste. Do you actually know how big the nuclear rods are that are used and how much waste is involved in a nuclear reactor. Storing the waste is the simple part of this equation(if the government would allow the use of the rods for longer you could cut your wastes down). 3 mile island was a HUMAN error as was Cherynbol.

People are very misinformed when it comes to nuclear power and always bring up the "waste" "radioactivity" issues, and yet have absolutely no problem going to the hospital for a CT scan because its just "x-rays"

Our media has done a wonderful job of snowing our citizens to the perceived dangers of nuclear power.....

 

[jillian]

I always love it when this track is taken when it comes to Nulcear waste. Do you actually know how big the nuclear rods are that are used and how much waste is involved in a nuclear reactor. Storing the waste is the simple part of this equation(if the government would allow the use of the rods for longer you could cut your wastes down). 3 mile island was a HUMAN error as was Cherynbol.

People are very misinformed when it comes to nuclear power and always bring up the "waste" "radioactivity" issues, and yet have absolutely no problem going to the hospital for a CT scan because its just "x-rays"

Our media has done a wonderful job of snowing our citizens to the perceived dangers of nuclear power.....

I'll be sure to send your assurances to my neighbor who was at Chernobyl and who just lost his vocal chords to cancer as a result. I'm sure he'll feel quite comforted that it was only "human error".

 

[nukeman]

I'll be sure to send your assurances to my neighbor who was at Chernobyl and who just lost his vocal chords to cancer as a result. I'm sure he'll feel quite comforted that it was only "human error".

That isn't the point and you know it!!!!!!! Our media has snowed most people about the "dangers" of nuclear power. France has the most nuclear power plants in the world and they have not had any accidents!! If your neighbor was "at" chernobyl he would still be there encased in concrete!(most only had 15 min. of life to do what they needed to do before the radiation killed them) The fallout from that reached as far away as Norway, Sweden, and Finland. They still check the milk and vegitables (I have family there not just a neighbor). The Russian Nuclear program was a major accident waiting to happen due to poor management and poor training of their personel....

Besides 3 Mile Island, and Chernobly the world has not had "Nuclear" problems. These plants are VERY safe and produce the cleanest energy second only to Solar/wind.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I'll be sure to send your assurances to my neighbor who was at Chernobyl and who just lost his vocal chords to cancer as a result. I'm sure he'll feel quite comforted that it was only "human error".

The Chernobyl reactor was a type of reactor that was never used by the west. Basically it was inefficient, and it's purpose was to produce material for nuclear warheads as much as it was to produce electricity, unlike western designs.

The other problem was the incredible stupidity of government inspectors. They literally shut down automatic safety overrides to test what would happen, and surprise surprise, it melted down. Three mile island on the other hand did what it was designed to do. The newest pebble-bed reactors are incredibly safe, and even if the operators walk off the job, a PB reactor simply cannot melt down.

Nuclear waste is not really a problem. You'll hear that it's radioactive for billions of years, but that's misleading. The deadliest particles emitting from the waste have a much shorter half-life, a few decades. The relatively harmless particles have the long half-life, but they are easily shielded by almost anything you put in their way, even cardboard. Currently waste is simply held on-site in most cases, although Yucca mountain in Nevada would be ideal.

Solar and wind are great, and they're getting cheaper; but until someone works out the problem of cheap energy storage on a massive scale, you still need a backbone for industry. Rooftop solar shingles will do a great job of blunting the huge demands of residential air conditioners in the not too distant future, but you still need something that can run 24/7.

Finally, look at France. They've been doing fine with nuclear. They still import oil of course, but with nuclear power, extensive electrified rail, and dense/walkable cities, they don't have to go into panic mode when the price of gas goes up. Plus, the founder of greenpeace supports nuclear, what more could you ask?

 

[Paulie]

But technology hasn't improved in this area. And even if the waste to energy ratio were better, we're still talking about nuclear waste being moved around the country in trucks -- huge security risk.

jillian, if you only knew how much nuclear material was moved around in trucks in this country everyday.

For 4 years I spent 16 days a month maintaining and transporting ICBM nuclear missile stages (including warheads) in trucks, in the Air Force. On days I wasn't working, some other team was. And that's only ONE example of this. There are a plethora of others.

I think your argument is rather baseless.

 

[Zoomie1980]

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/02/more-bad-news-f.html

The thrust of the study states that clearing land for the planting and harvesting of biofuel sources such as corn, soy, sugar cane etc actually causes more CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere; moreso than automobiles alone. The reason being that the land cleared is a more effective carbon sink and actually ties up more CO2 than the total reduction of CO2 seen by burning biofuels rather than petroleum.

Replacing one fossil or ogranic fuel with another make no sense. The future, short term is in things like solar, wind, geothermal and fission nuclear. Long term it is fusion reactors.... But none of it will matter if it isn't economical.

 

[Taomon]

I think you're both on different pages. Unless you think, solar and wind can be used as car fuel Tao, you seem to be talking about production of electricity, he seems to be talking about car fuel.

Ethanol is the biggest farce out there (although the fertilization of corn does create a lot of algae in the gulf). I would lean more toward Hydrogen or Nuclear. Nuclear would solve both issues.

Electric cars exist. We can power our cars with solar power (rechargeable batteries using solar paneled charge stations). The oil industry is one of the main reasons why we are not moving forward with that.

Nuclear powered cars? And what will we do with the hazardous waste?

Hydrogen cars? What do you suppose will happen when two hydrogen cars collide? Hiroshima all over again.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

jillian, if you only knew how much nuclear material was moved around in trucks in this country everyday.

For 4 years I spent 16 days a month maintaining and transporting ICBM nuclear missile stages (including warheads) in trucks, in the Air Force. On days I wasn't working, some other team was. And that's only ONE example of this. There are a plethora of others.

I think your argument is rather baseless.

Jillian, Paulitics is right. There is quite a bit of nuclear material that's moved aroung the states. It's highly regulated and accounted for. Look at France and how they've managed nuclear power. Quite an example.