Biofuels and the way forward in terms of energy

[emoloz]

So yes we know fuel and food prices are soaring through the roof but really whats your opinion on all this? What do you think would be best to do to solve this problem? And what about biofuels useful or useless?

Personally I think we too many natural resources and we just need to find out ways to use them/ Things such as wind turbines are helpful and solar panels to help power houses and such its just we cannot be bothered with the time and effort to invest in these.

Theres also other ways such as trying to use energy from world disasters such as tornado's or rain and such and if we could find ways to do this especially rain we could use these natural disasters and rain anyways to our benefit to make energy. Tremors from earthquakes could possibly power a whole country for a while. Though am not sure apart from rain and gale force winds how gaining energy from them would work.

Biofuels meh forget them There going to take too much time and using food to make fuel are you insane we have a world food shortage as it is. Why take away some of the worlds precious food to actually make stuff that will get used in a matter of seconds in a powerplant/car.

[earthforge]

emoloz: You actually about sum it up I think. Biofuels are highly enifficiant and tend to build a dependence on another limited resource. The ethanol industry is suffferring from the floods in the midwest within the US. Besides, the proposed biofuels are very, very stupid. There was one that involved taking down trees in the rain forest just for a small amount of palm oil. Palm oil is also known to be highly inefficient. In this case, the forests are becoming wrecked for not enough net gain, which is next to nill.

I see more future in solar. I agree that there should be much more investment in that side of the buisiness. It has been developing rather quickly to solve the assorted issues with solar panels. I attended a lecture regarding investments in solar technology, and observed the issues being that there needed to be no amount of lost light in the process and there also needed to be an efficient design that can track the sun while gathering as much sun as possible.

Wind I'm not sure about.

[speedphantom]

From what I heard, the food growers in Africa are getting more money for selling their corn and rice etc for ethanol production for the Western world rather than selling it as actual food. That's a ridiculous situation, using perfectly good food to produce ethanol for the rich people in the world to drive.

I think renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectricity should be focused on since you can't keep on burning coal if it's contributing to global warming. Nuclear has it's issues with the waste so it's not that brilliant to have to deal with more waste products of sorts. Renewable energy has not waste products at all.

[emoloz]

Yeah am against nuclear is something goes wrong more than the people in that plant pay the price the world does. I agree also on the production on ethanol and stupid useless things which could be used as food rather than for fuel and whatever else instead of growing crops and such and they should be paid more for the crops to be used as food and make it all fair trade even though it is a very difficult thing to do.

Only thing is compared ti wind solar panel is expensive but if we get a huge demand prices can go down and it cna open new job opportunities so it does work in the long run.

[Miashin]

Forget wind and solar I say. Solar you can only get in decent supply on a sunny day, and wind's fickle at the best of times. They are good things to have, but somewhat dangerous to rely on slowly.

I say use currents. Set up turbines in major rivers and in the ocean. It's the exact same principle as wind turbines except, unlike winds, you know the river current isn't going to make any major and fast changes in direction and location (or cease all together). Ocean currents are a liiiiittle trickier, but also more predictable than most wind currents.

As for fuel sources. I say use all the trash people are producing. So much organic waste is created everyday, if people could find ways to turn that into fuel weed be set for a good long while to come. Right now, it doesn't even necessarily have to be something 100% clean, as long as it does something to alleviate the rising gas prices AND decrease reliance on oils and resources from countries that are abusing their monopoly on them than it's more than good enough for a start.

But them's just my two scents.

[Shdo]

sunny days or sunny places? there are many places in the world that are VERY rich in sunlight.

as for nuclear, if its made with good standarts there is no real reason to expect a chernovil like disaster. keep in mind that as horriable as it was its still wasnt that bad, you can go there today and there is little to no radiation.

until we have cold fusion or something like that everything that slows pollution is good, nuclear power isnt the solution but another step towards a greener world.
even if its glowing green...

[Miashin]

sunny days or sunny places? there are many places in the world that are VERY rich in sunlight.

That's true. But one has to ask how many of those places can support large solar plants. Those things get very bright and very hot, so much so that equipment needs to be worn by workers to protect from both. Though I suppose any large desert area with a small population would do just fine, my only thinking was that areas such as these are limited around the world and most of the worlds population isn't found in such habitats.

keep in mind that as horriable as it was its still wasnt that bad, you can go there today and there is little to no radiation.

Oh this is going to be a rant.

How can something be horrible, but then not be bad at all? Yes there is still radiation today in the area, though not much of it is left. The problem is the damage it did back when it was at it's highest. The radiation from Chernobil set of sensors and alarms in nuclear power plants as far up as the UK and Poland, though I don't think it would have done all that much damage to the people in that area. However the people who lived near Chernobil suffered greatly. Entire generations were wiped out among the exposed populations. Sure this loss of life doesn't seem much in the large scheme of things, but the same could be said for the loss of life in all disasters like 9-11, the Titanic, the earthquake in China, and all great disasters. Just because most of the damage is localized doesn't make it any less horrible.

That said, I have to agree with you that generally speaking Nuclear energy is overall very safe. The problem is what to do with all that waste and that on those few times that things do go wrong, they do so to a horrifying degree.

Actually, the same goes for Nuclear fusion. Though I'll admit I don't know much of it, what I do know of the forces necessary for it makes me think that something going wrong or 'breaking' could result in a disaster just as bad as a Nuclear fision disaster.

[Shdo]

nuclear fusion is the same but only bringing more energy and no pollution at all.


as for the dangers. a explosion can kill thousends, maybe millions, but that is nothing compared to an entire planet dying from rise in carbon levels.


i understand that france use nuclear power for over half their energy consumption, that is pretty impressive and i never heard of any disaster there. its all about safety protocols and design.


as for special equipment for 'solar workers' there is special equipment for workers in oil fields so i dont really see a problem here. actually it would be really nice if africa will sell sunlight to the western world, there is something beautiful in it.

"we will sell you sun light, a ray of hope for you and us"

[Miashin]

a explosion can kill thousends, maybe millions, but that is nothing compared to an entire planet dying from rise in carbon levels.

See, that's one thing I dislike about the current 'scare' of global warming. Not to demean the very real threat it poses, but I have to point that it'd be almost impossible for humans to release enough carbon into the air to kill off ALL life. The truth is, we are quite capable of killing ourselves off, but life in general has this habit of 'surviving.'

Anyway, as I said, I agree with the use of Nuclear energy to an extent. It is an overall very safe energy source. I'm just thinking that if it were to become the MAIN energy source of the planet (between all major industrial countries from the US to Asia, Eurasia, and Europe) that we'd run out of places to put all that nuclear waste really fast.

You're right, there isn't much difference between an oil and solar station other than a solar station requires a far greater amount of space. Still, considering current political conditions a great deal of work would have to put forward first to first provide the stability necessary to build something like the solar plants in Africa.

Not only that, but it puts most countries right back to where they are now, reliant on foreign powers (who are often quite cruel to the citizenry of their own countries) for their own energy needs. Making one continent the source of most energy is not a step forward.

[Shdo]

sure they will survive, but when i see today massive rain forests and think of the future deserts and wastelands that will replace them (there would still be life in those deserts) i can only feel it will be so much...less.

being on life support is pretty much close to death in my eyes.


as for reliance thing, you will stay relient if you like it or not, just like they will stay reliant on your power. the way to a green world where we will build things with zero pollution and respect the land is a long climb and to reach the top you will need to make many little holes with your pike.
first we stop pollution, then we move on to other energy sources that can be made in colder climates and one day we will be free of this circle of give and take where everyone will be able to sustain themselves. till then...

[Hiraeth]

Anyway, as I said, I agree with the use of Nuclear energy to an extent. It is an overall very safe energy source. I'm just thinking that if it were to become the MAIN energy source of the planet (between all major industrial countries from the US to Asia, Eurasia, and Europe) that we'd run out of places to put all that nuclear waste really fast.

Honestly that just seems like a cop out. One of the main reasons I support nuclear power is because of the relatively small amount of waste that it produces, compared to say coal or oil power stations which pump huge amounts of muck into our atmosphere every second. I'm not finding the statistics because I'm lazy, but basically nuclear stations produce a lot more power from a lot less, and with a lot less waste as a result.

[Shdo]

thats true, the waste that is made from normal power stations is much greater but you dont notice that because its in your air.

as for places for nuclear waste, there are deserts where nothing live (at least human) and can be used to bury things for centuries without a problem.


if you fear of running out of place then the raw junk we create each year is much more troubeling.

[Miashin]

Honestly that just seems like a cop out. One of the main reasons I support nuclear power is because of the relatively small amount of waste that it produces, compared to say coal or oil power stations which pump huge amounts of muck into our atmosphere every second. I'm not finding the statistics because I'm lazy, but basically nuclear stations produce a lot more power from a lot less, and with a lot less waste as a result.

I don't think of it as a cop-out as much as pointing out an obvious negative. I'd do the same no matter what energy source we were focusing on. Just like I'm pointing out negatives with Solar, I'm doing it with Nuclear. Besides, I do support nuclear power, I support anything that takes us away from reliance on fossil fuels.

sure they will survive, but when i see today massive rain forests and think of the future deserts and wastelands that will replace them (there would still be life in those deserts) i can only feel it will be so much...less.
---
as for places for nuclear waste, there are deserts where nothing live (at least human) and can be used to bury things for centuries without a problem.

This is kind of off topic, but the desert has it's own ecosystem and life. It's no less 'alive' than any forest or jungle, nor is it any less deserving of ecologic thought. A world made of mostly desert life is still a living world, it's not on life support but simply thriving under a new environment. Meh, what I'm trying to say is that all life is equal, if you wouldn't build that waste site in a tropical jungle then you should take just as much consideration when building it elsewhere.

Of course the above is ridiculously idealistic, I'm just poking at this flaw I'm seeing. When it comes down to it, a desert is the best place for waste storage. The concentration of life forms in one area is smaller then in most others, and there's little rain that could damage any holding facilities, and also little water run off that could carry pollutants through groundwater and spread them.

if you fear of running out of place then the raw junk we create each year is much more troubeling.

I still think that 'raw junk' is one of our best bets for energy. It's not like we'd run out of it any time soon. The trick, I would imagine, while producing less pollution than fossil fuels at the very least.

[Shdo]

we have this garbage area in my country that became so massive (60 meter tall and covered with ground)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/Israel_hiriya.jpg

the amount of garbage is so massive that the only way to stop the mountain from spreading was to cover it with dirt, but it still bring out alot of methane.
to take care of this problem a new facility was built there and it makes biofuel out of the garbage.

the intresting thing is that the ground started to grow plants, right now there is a little ecosystem in this man made mountain.

its been 10 years since the site was closed and it will keep pumping methane for at least few more decades.


EDIT: i just came back from the desert...what a waste of space. so grey and brown...once i was on a trip to the desert and the tour guide was all happy and joyful (they always are) and i was all gloomy, she asked "why are you sad, dont you like nature?"

so i told her, "nature is green, this is brown..."

"but how can you dislike all this natural and virgin land..."

"i like concreate."

she never talked to me again...thank god...

[Miashin]

Well then, it's being put to good use. That's always something to applaud.

I don't think it's surprising that plants and an ecosystem are growing on it. Life is a sturdy thing that can show up almost everywhere. There was an ecosystem atop the Love Canal before the hole thing was covered up with fiber and plastic. And THAT place was a literal cesspool of toxins.

I love life, it's such an amazingly sturdy thing.

[Shdo]

until you nuke it...again and again...and then cover the soil with salt.

if it bleed it can be nuked.

[Miashin]

Cockroaches seem to do well with that stuff, though even they have their limits.

Stuff that doesn't bleed can be nuked too. The secret to destruction: everything burns.

Though to be fair, later you can dig up the built up salt deposits and make profits off of that. Maybe? >.>

[emoloz]

Ok so if people like nuclear where the heck do we dump the crap that is produced from it? Dig more holes in the ground? It's just as bad as drilling holes for oil and eventually something bad WILL happen. It's because this is still a new thing and we still dont know everything about it. I din;t think we should be mixing with things we don't fully understand Of course we know to an extent what Nuclear power is and does but the extent is difficult.

Yes the radiation is still there from Chenobal i means not as much but look what it did. Am not saying we would have another but why put the risk there when there are less risky naturla things like rain and wind and sun that we can use?

[Shdo]

its simple, the radiation in chernobyl is non existant by now, i saw a documantry about it and they didnt found mutations in the local lifeforms IN the site itself. the problem back then was in construction, today reactors cannot explode because they built in a way that shut down on the slightest of problems (not because of softwhere but because of hardware, and how they designed)

as for the waste, i dont think you understand how much LESS waste it create. much of that waste (90%) can be reused and the depleted uranium is needed for many things.
if more resources would be spent on study of nuclear power more and more solutions would be found that will outwheight the disadvantages.

breeder reactors, reprocessing and simply dumping barels into a volcano would be enough to make nuclear power a clean solution until we get fusion. either way, its much better then coal and oil since they pollute much more and its also much stronger then wind and solar powerplants.

[BioWeapon154]

Biofuels are a great way to reduce the amount of oil waste from ending up in a dump of some kind by giving it a second life. However, biofuels should only be a supplement for current fuel usage.

Mass production of biofuels should only involve waste oil from fast food venues etc....

And in the future...... hydrogen fuel will eventually be the future. Although biofuels will become more popular over time, hydrogen fuel will eventually be the replacement.


As far as any others like wind and solar are too weak for powering larger vehicles and are too costly and depend on weather.

Nuclear power being suggested is a bad idea. First of all, you need to have a way to either run cars of electricity produced by said power or manage to get a reactor small enough to fit into a car. Either way, hydrogen technology will surpass these technologies due to improvements and decreased risks.

[Inevitable.Exit]

As many have said Nuclear Power is going to be the cleanest alternative.

The problems with biofuels (namely ethanol) is that it is very inefficient. And it does not help greenhouse gases since you are burning Carbon. Carbon + Heat -> CO2. Add in the fact that there is a world food shortage and the idea of using food to produce fuel is an ethical nightmare.

But Nuclear Power also isn't an alternative. Eventually the storing process will become iffy since the left over waste has to be carefully mixed with ceramics, placed fairly deep underground in a room made of solid concrete.

Hydrogen power is the best. But we are YEARS(talking hundreds) away from making Hydrogen cells that would be safe enough for say, cars.

I would support maybe 1-3 more nuclear plants in America but I would not liking to see more.

And Shdo, you can't just dump nuclear waste in a volcano...

But I'm not too up with technology for recycling nuclear waste. I don't think the technology is quite there. I only have a chem minor :\

[Shdo]

its there, a good reactor almost dont give waste cuz the waste is used for other things.

and why cant you dump nuclear waste into a volcano?

[Rain]

1-3 more in the US...thats nothing, there are already dozens in the US, such a small amoutn would amount to very little

I think more nuclear reactiors are a good idea, but really, we shouldn't look to one thing as a source

thats how we got into the problem now

if we focus on hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear power, biofuels and electric cars and still use fossil fuels then that would eb the best alternative



we should just fire nuclear waste off into space...out of sight out of mind :p

[Shdo]

not space, bury it in your back yard but dont throw it into space, if the rocket explode it will be very bad for a large area.

we still didnt found the promised land, something that is clean and effective, till then we need to press on with new tech and use whatever we can, nuclear, solar, fuel, biofuel, everything.

slowly we will get rid of the more damaging ways such as oil and nuclear but till then.

[Carrotsandroses]

Biofuels seriously don't work, because not only are you still producing CO2, but it causes farmers to grow plants for fuels iinstead of food, since its more lucrative. Which means we'd basically be competing with Automobiles for food.