BF2S Forums Is Biofuel Really the Answer?

I think Biofuel is a short term thing, it's not something we can rely on for another 100 years. But we can make it pretty efficient if we can use it in hybrid cars. Electrical enginge and E85 engine.
But if we really want to continue using cars for another 100 years, I think electricity is the answer, we just need to come up with a good way of making it efficient enough

The problem with biofuel, is that depending on the source (corn VS. sugar cane for example) it is more or less ..... effective

Corn biofuel take almost as much energy to produce as it give, and if you take into account that ethanol is less effective than regular gas, the actual result is a negative energy return.

Sugar cane on the other hand is a better way of doing it, gives way more ethanol, and requires less energy to produce. You can even use the byproduct to power your transformation plant.

Than both of these product are food that are taken out of the food supply to fuel car,  yes we do need something else. there's way of making ethanol out of the whole plant (Cellulosic ethanol) but it's not quite ready yet (cost wise).

The best way would be Electric car, and for most everyday travel it would be enough. A 120 kilometer range at 80 km/h that quite enough for city use. Ford and toyota had complete electric vehicle, but because of low sale and battery problem they stop selling those.

Something we can do is use our head to, I live in the city and i have two kids, work is a 15 minutes walk from home, and I don't own a car. I don't  know anybody else around me who  have two kids and don't own a car, they all  ''need'' there car. Some live closer to work then me for Christ sake.  lazy fuck

anyway.....

In my opinion, biofuel could be a jumpstart to the answer - at least it spurs the exploration of other means of energy for transportation.

Biofuel, depending on what kind, could lead to negative output of energy.  It could be great for reducing the reliance on oil, and perhaps contribute to a lower cost of oil, but would do nothing to alleviate pollution of the environment.  Biofuel engines that run on used vegetable oil would be a great addition and combat both the effects of pollution and the reliance on oil, foreign and domestic.

Biofuel also can have deep economic impacts, and not simply within the U.S.  As our heavily subsidized corn market shifts from producing corn for export to producing corn for biofuel, it has the impact of raising corn-based products across the globe.  Virtually every processed food has some sort of corn product, which would mean that even a small jump in the price of corn based food products would have great economic impact.  A simple solution is to eliminate subsidies for corn growth, which would lower the artificial price of corn in general, but also perhaps promote the growth of corn for biofuel.  The same ideas can be argued for sugarcane or other biofuels that are also in widespread use as primary ingredients in foodstuffs.

The main positive I see from biofuel is that it indicates a willingness - both by the general public and industry - to explore different ideas of energy.  At the very least it could result in less reliance on foreign oil, which would be very influential in our foreign policy decisions.  At best, it could lead to a brand new and profitable (in money and environment) industry of renewable energy resources.

Biofuel can be the answer as some production techniques are actually carbon neutral, such as using bacteria outside of coal fire plants to sequester the carbon dioxide. However, mankind needs an energy revolution, and the way I see it, the more radical it is, the better it's going to be.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

I hate subjects like this. Nobody is an expert but everyone seems to think reciting someone else opinions make them one. It's about as fruitful as arguing about global warming is.

I have friends who actually researched the carbon sequestering technique of producing biofuels, and it actually works. It may as well be a solution. And Ajax, whoever ignores global warming is just plain ignorant, however the debate lies in whether or not it's caused by man.

nuc le fuckin ar

then you have electricity powered cars. simple.

Last edited by Vilham (2008-01-20 09:39:13)

Ethanol would not work on a large scale... the amount of space that we would need to grow all of the corn is simply not available... and we need that space to grow things that we eat too.

I feel the best option would be a mix of several alternatives, possibly different in various sectors of the country.  Ethanol, hydrogen, electric, more options would be good.

But E85 ethanol gas is currently $2.69 a gallon by me.. and I have a flex fuel ford tarus...

Biofuels are the only way to keep producing internal combustion engines that'll work when we go colonial. For large-scale power production we should just go nuclear, but electric cars will never catch on, so we'll just need biofuels to make things work.

Bio fuel is not the answer and this has been debated in several threads before ...

usmarine2005 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Bio fuel is not the answer and this has been debated in several threads before ...

Oh sorry.  Guess we could talk about the US economy for the 100000 time

Well, seing as that should be the most important subject to an American as of right now i don't understand that a thread about it only have gathered 50 replies when another completly useless word like appeasement is being discussed over two threads with 457 replies and counting

usmarine2005 wrote:

ya whatever

Interesting reply

Revelation: Environmentalists are NEVER FUCKING HAPPY. They just want us to go back to grunting, eating roots yanked out the ground, cowering in caves, jumping at lightning, and praying we don't get eaten by tigers or bears or wolves or stomped on by mammoths.