Pages: 1

 

2008-07-09 07:36:14
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7178|Argentina
If we take a look at the price of oil we may think biofuels are the solution.  But what about the negative effects of using biofuels?
I can think of several negative things about biofuels, and the only positive one is making oil cheaper.
For instance, if you need more crops to make more biofuel, there will be less land used for food production, and that means the prices of food will raise because the demand of food won't be covered.  At the same time, you will need more farmlands.  This means more deforestation, and the loss of natural habitats and more pollution of the environment.  We need to think of the consequences of using biofuels before thinking they are the solution, because I don't think starvation and destroying the Earth are a solution.  There's enough oil to satisfy the current demand, that including India and China, big corporations just need to stop being so fucking greedy.
2008-07-09 07:39:10
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6989|Mountains of NC

on the land part ......... hydrophonics are awesome, a area that would give you 100 acres of crops can be grown indoors in a 20,000 sq ft facility
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
2008-07-09 07:40:15
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6914|Connecticut
I don't personaly think so Serge. The cost of bio fuels, plus the rate at wich we would consume them would greatly outweigh the advantages. I say our governments set a date somewhere in the neighborhood of ten years from now that would mandate all cars to run on electricity and/ or natural gas. When, and only when we establish that deadline we drill of Americas shores and bring the gas price back down in the meantime to steady our crumbling economy. I honestly think bio fuels would be orse in the long run.
Malloy must go
2008-07-09 07:46:18
ReTox
Member
+100|6920|State of RETOXification
No.  Biofuels are not the answer.  They are a stop-gap at best... a dismal failure most likely.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.  We have no choice but to use hydrogen as fuel to replace petroleum in combustion systems, motors, generators, etc.  Wind and solar are also where we need to go for static power.  If every high-rise roof top in every major city had solar panels installed and tied into the grid it would drop the overall consumption significantly.

I personally think that a community should take the initiative and put the $5,000-$10,000 panels on every roof top.  Initial cost is great, overall savings even greater.  The problem is that governments think in terms of 4-8 years and not 25-100.  You take 10% of overall consumption from current costs and it doesn't take long to see real savings.

Bio = fail... Hydrogen, Solar, Wind = FTW!
2008-07-09 07:50:09
chittydog
less busy
+586|7256|Kubra, Damn it!

Solar is the way to go. No need to mess with H, when there's enough sunlight to power the world 1000x over. Supposedly, they're less than 10 years away from 100% efficient solar cells. That means powering your whole house with one small cell on your roof. I'll look for the link to the article.
2008-07-09 07:55:21
chittydog
less busy
+586|7256|Kubra, Damn it!

Found it. Read the articles heggs quotes. Really cool stuff. If this was common knowledge, we could stop all the biofuel stuff and let food prices come back down.
2008-07-09 08:53:40
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7262|Cologne, Germany

no. we barely have enough land left to grow crops on and feed our ever-growing population. Using that precious land to grow biomass will only make food prices go through the roof ( which they already are, in some areas ), leading to a huge number of people being unable to afford even the most basic food, such as rice, flour, wheat, bread, etc.

The fact is, we don't have the land needed to supply enough biofuel and feed our people at the same time. simple as that.
Food is more important than fuel.

Biofuels can be of help during a transitional phase, while we switch from traditional combustion engines to something else, be it solar-powered electric cars ( my personal favourite ) or hydrogen power. They cannot be the main source of power for the world's transportation needs.
2008-07-09 09:02:49
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6889
Biofuels are evil.

What we need to do is make the generation of electricity less depedant on petroleum (i.e. less % of oil-based reactors) and replace them with solar, wind, hydroelectric and (dare I say it) nu-cu-lar reactors.

Keep petroleum in cars until we find a good alternative.
2008-07-09 11:12:41
SealXo
Member
+309|6957
natural gas ftw
2008-07-09 11:40:30
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7042|London, England
I was reading about Biofuels, apparently there is one plant that doesn't bring in the food shortage problem. Because it can be grown on wasteland (i.e: it won't take up land for food crop)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha_biodiesel

Some Interesting quotes:

It is resistant to a high degree of aridity (it can be planted even in the desert [5] [6] [7]) and as such does not compete with food crops.
The plant yields more than four times as much fuel per hectare as soybean, and more than ten times that of maize (corn). A hectare of jatropha produces 1,892 litres of fuel.[2]
If just 3% of Africa was planted with this crop, the revenue would easily run into tens of billions of euros.[12] India is now preparing for the planting of 40 million hectares with Jatropha, and has done intensive testing of this biofuel.[13]

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-07-09 11:41:06)

2008-07-09 11:54:01
SEREVENT
MASSIVE G STAR
+605|6528|Birmingham, UK

ReTox wrote:

No.  Biofuels are not the answer.  They are a stop-gap at best... a dismal failure most likely.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.  We have no choice but to use hydrogen as fuel to replace petroleum in combustion systems, motors, generators, etc.  Wind and solar are also where we need to go for static power.  If every high-rise roof top in every major city had solar panels installed and tied into the grid it would drop the overall consumption significantly.

I personally think that a community should take the initiative and put the $5,000-$10,000 panels on every roof top.  Initial cost is great, overall savings even greater.  The problem is that governments think in terms of 4-8 years and not 25-100.  You take 10% of overall consumption from current costs and it doesn't take long to see real savings.

Bio = fail... Hydrogen, Solar, Wind = FTW!
Hydrogen is highly explosive, and expensive to look after and electrolysis is really expensive too.

Whereas, you were right in every other point.
2008-07-09 11:55:09
SEREVENT
MASSIVE G STAR
+605|6528|Birmingham, UK

SealXo wrote:

natural gas ftw
Natural gas stocks are the lowest of all the fossil fuels, right? Coal being the largest. Right?
2008-07-09 12:13:49
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6889

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

I was reading about Biofuels, apparently there is one plant that doesn't bring in the food shortage problem. Because it can be grown on wasteland (i.e: it won't take up land for food crop)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha_biodiesel

Some Interesting quotes:

It is resistant to a high degree of aridity (it can be planted even in the desert [5] [6] [7]) and as such does not compete with food crops.
The plant yields more than four times as much fuel per hectare as soybean, and more than ten times that of maize (corn). A hectare of jatropha produces 1,892 litres of fuel.[2]
If just 3% of Africa was planted with this crop, the revenue would easily run into tens of billions of euros.[12] India is now preparing for the planting of 40 million hectares with Jatropha, and has done intensive testing of this biofuel.[13]
Save Africa and the enviroment at the same time! Holy shit why doesn't everyone know about this? [/omfgmode]

But srsly, what are the major drawbacks of this?
2008-07-09 13:06:21
GorillaKing798
Too legit to quit
+48|6536|Tampa, Florida
I was under the impression that petroleum products were used in refining bio fuels as well as hydrogen. If that is still the case then neither of those are the solution.

Solar is an up and coming solution however with solar panles peak efficiency at 12% right now it will be a few years before the technology is perfected as chitty has stated.

Last edited by GorillaKing798 (2008-07-09 13:07:00)

2008-07-09 13:14:28
chittydog
less busy
+586|7256|Kubra, Damn it!

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

I was reading about Biofuels, apparently there is one plant that doesn't bring in the food shortage problem. Because it can be grown on wasteland (i.e: it won't take up land for food crop)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha_biodiesel

Some Interesting quotes:

It is resistant to a high degree of aridity (it can be planted even in the desert [5] [6] [7]) and as such does not compete with food crops.
The plant yields more than four times as much fuel per hectare as soybean, and more than ten times that of maize (corn). A hectare of jatropha produces 1,892 litres of fuel.[2]
If just 3% of Africa was planted with this crop, the revenue would easily run into tens of billions of euros.[12] India is now preparing for the planting of 40 million hectares with Jatropha, and has done intensive testing of this biofuel.[13]
Algae is even better than that. This guy produces 2000 times more fuel per hectare than soy, and 3,333 times more than corn. That's 200 times more than Jatropha.

I'd like to say "let India waste their time with Jatropha", but in all reality, algae won't catch on here and we'll stick with corn.
2008-07-09 13:35:14
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6976
Nuclear + Electric Cars as stop gap. Renewable energy is the only way mankind will sustain itself in the long run. Most renewable energy sources are unreliable. As such, we need to find ways of cheaply storing energy (batteries = fail). Wind, wave, tidal, solar, geothermal, hydro + some sophisticated new energy storage facility -> Win!

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-09 13:36:47)

2008-07-09 15:47:36
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6778|CA, USA
The earth simply has too many people consuming things.  reduce population = FTW
2008-07-09 15:49:44
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6959|Long Island, New York
https://www.outatime.it/public/40-mr_fusion.jpg
https://journeyhomeburke.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/mr-fusion.jpg

The way of the future. [/howardhughes]
2008-07-09 15:50:26
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6976

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

The earth simply has too many people consuming things.  reduce population = FTW
Agreed.

Read up on the history of Easter Island in the south-east Pacific - it's essentially a macrocosm for what the world is doing to itself right now.
2008-07-09 16:17:35
Switch
Knee Deep In Clunge
+489|6884|Tyne & Wear, England

CameronPoe wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

The earth simply has too many people consuming things.  reduce population = FTW
Agreed.

Read up on the history of Easter Island in the south-east Pacific - it's essentially a macrocosm for what the world is doing to itself right now.
There was an awesome documentary I saw about that.  How they cut down all the trees etc etc, this in turn led to tribal warfare and ultimately the destruction of the islanders.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
2008-07-09 19:12:24
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6991|Portland, OR, USA

ReTox wrote:

No.  Biofuels are not the answer.  They are a stop-gap at best... a dismal failure most likely.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.  We have no choice but to use hydrogen as fuel to replace petroleum in combustion systems, motors, generators, etc.  Wind and solar are also where we need to go for static power.  If every high-rise roof top in every major city had solar panels installed and tied into the grid it would drop the overall consumption significantly.

I personally think that a community should take the initiative and put the $5,000-$10,000 panels on every roof top.  Initial cost is great, overall savings even greater.  The problem is that governments think in terms of 4-8 years and not 25-100.  You take 10% of overall consumption from current costs and it doesn't take long to see real savings.

Bio = fail... Hydrogen, Solar, Wind = FTW!
Do you know how much silicon would have to be refined to put a solar panel array on every rooftop?  I don't, but I'm sure that it'd be a hell of a ot.

We need a combination of alternative fuels.  Until (if) we harness fusion reactions, we will never again have a power generating resource like oil.  Either we need to wake up and realize that all of our lives would be so much easier in the future if we limited our exponential population growth, or seriously invest in a ton of different alternative fuels..

There is no one single answer... and if there was, biofuel would definitely not be it, our fuel cannot come from our food...
2008-07-09 19:29:33
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7128|67.222.138.85

ReTox wrote:

No.  Biofuels are not the answer.  They are a stop-gap at best... a dismal failure most likely.
yes

ReTox wrote:

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.  We have no choice but to use hydrogen as fuel to replace petroleum in combustion systems, motors, generators, etc.  Wind and solar are also where we need to go for static power.  If every high-rise roof top in every major city had solar panels installed and tied into the grid it would drop the overall consumption significantly.
There are lots of options, and hydrogen doesn't look like such a good one. The energy density isn't high enough, so unless compression gets a lot better it isn't very viable. Solar would be ideal in the long term, but current efficiency levels and battery capacity levels aren't good enough to make it a good solution at the moment. Wind is good in the right environments if you can convince people to put up with the skyline pollution.

ReTox wrote:

The problem is that governments think in terms of 4-8 years and not 25-100.
The problem is large groups of people can't look far enough ahead. Politicians are going to do whatever they need to do to get votes, and if that means looking into the far future, they will do it. Convincing enough people to look that far ahead is just too much to ask at the moment apparently.

chittydog wrote:

Solar is the way to go. No need to mess with H, when there's enough sunlight to power the world 1000x over. Supposedly, they're less than 10 years away from 100% efficient solar cells. That means powering your whole house with one small cell on your roof. I'll look for the link to the article.
The article said we are 7 doublings away from meeting 100% of our energy needs with solar, not 100% efficiency, which is physically impossible and confused me lol. Whether that means that means we will be meeting today's demand after that time has past or that time's demand I don't know. I can't say I know exactly what advancements are being made in the field, but I am skeptical about the figures he was throwing out there. I question whether concepts similar to Moore's law can be applied to energy conversion efficiency.

SEREVENT wrote:

Hydrogen is highly explosive
Yes, compared to gasoline, that thing we drag around in big tanks underneath our car seats, hydrogen is explosive. lol.

There are better things than corn, not just economically but performance wise, that are in development from lots of different directions. The primary problem is developing the enzymes that break down all the different types of plants that could be used, but I can't tell you how many articles I have read about biochemists looking to do just that. Biofuels are a good temporary solution.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard