What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
42 Comments
- allaboutdatiki, on 12/12/2008, -0/+15One word, m'boy: algae.
- nickaster, on 12/12/2008, -1/+10Efficiency, Efficiency, Efficiency... and reduction, reduction, reduction ... unless people repeat those over and over again, we're never going to solve our problems, biofuel or otherwise!
- angryredplanet, on 12/13/2008, -0/+7Absolutely spot on.
Most driving could be done using electric cars powered by a grid charged by wind. The US (as well as many other places) has a vast and unending supply of it. The objections and my proposed solutions:
1) Until very recently, most people want high powered, low efficiency cars.
Hybrids do the job very nicely, are easier to park, easier to drive in city traffic and can reduce fuel (petroleum) usage by at least 70 to 90% per car depending on the type of driving required. Choosing between economic collapse and responsible conservation is really a no brainer, but some will require more convincing.
2) Wind is unreliable - and what about spinning reserve on the grid.
Both of these problems are addressed adequately when the scale of implementation is increased. I read recently that Chrysler are crying out for government handouts in the face of bankruptcy? If the CEO had any foresight he'd retool the workshop to produce wind turbines and start producing hybrids. We need to end our reliance on oil.
3) Wind turbines are ugly.
So am I, so what gives?! Most utilities will pay land owners $1000's PER ANNUM to put a turbine on unused land. That's a pretty good passive income for no capital outlay. Not so ugly now, hey?
4) Wind turbines kill birds.
Not as many as pollution from the burning of petroleum does, I don't have stats, but I'd guarantee this. I guess it's a case of the lesser of two evils - particularly if it means less wars and destruction in the quest of securing foreign oil.
I am a big advocate of wind power and am willing and capable to address any other concerns put forward... - inactive, on 12/13/2008, -0/+5It'll be really interesting to see how Obama's new energy secretary, Steven Chu works his outspoken belief in biofuels into policy. Will the Obama administration be able to make a case for this technology when there are so many issues still being worked out? Chu is a Nobel Prize winning physicist and by all accounts a brilliant and competent individual, and I tend to trust his opinion that biofuels have big future. I just doubt Congress will unless corn subsidies are involved.
- Pookatooka, on 12/13/2008, -0/+4I don't know why there is still this stereotype of corn ethanol being the only source for biofuels. This is a very huge misconception. Biofuel producers are consistently creating new technology that allow for other alternatives. Nova Biosource Fuels, a small-scale biodiesel producer, can use 20+ sources of feedstock to produce their biodiesel. Much of the feedstock they use is not edible, and does not take away food from society. The other day, for instance, I believe they got a very large shipment of butter that had gone bad. It created quite a stink in the surrounding area, but was easily converted to biodiesel, nonetheless.
- stutimandal, on 12/13/2008, -0/+4Finally an article on Digg which is less about breakthrough and more about hurdles.
- iisabelle, on 12/13/2008, -2/+6The only way we are going to deal with our problems is by changing our focus: rather than trying to sustain our current overly lavish style by changing energy sources, we should be focusing on conservation of resources and adaptation to the changes that could happen in the near future. This includes reduction of resource use as well as increased efficiency.
Biofuels aren't the answer.
Maybe geothermal or ocean power generation can possibly provide a large amount of energy, but the focus should still be on conservation and adaptation. - lynosull, on 12/13/2008, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanogen "Some, called hydrogenotrophic, use carbon dioxide (CO2) as a source of carbon, and hydrogen as a reducing agent. Some of the CO2 is reacted with the hydrogen to produce methane"
- rizzo2008, on 12/13/2008, -0/+3You can refine direct replacements for gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc from algae oil which rely only on sunlight, CO2, and a bit of water (it doesn't have to be fresh water either - waste or salt water could do the trick as well). Furthermore the yield per acre with algae is far superior to crop based biofuels of any kind (I have seen estimates ranging from 3000 gal/acre/yr to 100,000 gal/acre/yr which compared to corn ethanols 17 or soys 126 gal/acre/yr is amazing)
http://www.sapphireenergy.com/
http://originoil.com/
http://www.diversified-energy.com/index.cfm?s_webA ...
Some are even trying to engineer microbes that produce hydrocarbons from sugar or waste. Even better are genetically engineered bacteria that use to CO2 and convert them directly into hydrocarbons (not ethanol which is a fundamentally inferior fuel to gasoline, diesel, etc)
http://www.syntheticgenomics.com/
http://ls9.com/
Point being is I believe the real revolution in biofuels will be completely independent of arable land and use much less water resources than people think they will. - rizzo2008, on 12/13/2008, -0/+3or synthetic microbes that eat CO2 and poop hydrocarbons
- purplefruit, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2The saving grace of bio fuels will probably be genetic engineering. The energy balance of all solutions today is not compelling given the investment in water, energy inputs, and land. For example, the US ethanol business has a 100-200 year carbon payback period (carbon saved from renewables vs. carbon released from deforestation and turning of land), requires large quantities of water to be diverted from agricultural and human consumption, and is not even economical without subsidies. Only sugar cane really makes sense now, and that requires deforestation of the rain forest. Genetically engineered algae that require less water, land, and investment than any current source might be the solution.
- Pookatooka, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2There does not have to be a single source of alternative energy. Biofuel technology is quickly advancing, and soon the garbage that would ordinarily rot at the dump will be convertible to biodiesel. This is extremely beneficial.
It's not practical to believe a nation can run off of biofuels. It is practical, however, to believe biofuels can be extremely beneficial and put to good use. - Devilboy666, on 12/14/2008, -0/+2Yes, Craig Venter seems pretty sure that we'll have those before 2010 or so. It will be awesome if they can pull it off.
- rushiku, on 12/13/2008, -0/+2Only six of the 19 hurdles are not directly related to using food to produce ethanol, hmmm, something seems to be a painfully obvious problem with food as fuel, but I'm not sure what...
- mastersmite, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1Wind is incredibly stupid compared to nuclear power which has proven to be stable and reliable. The French got it right; imagine what the US could do if we really wanted to.
- Pookatooka, on 12/14/2008, -0/+1I don't necessarily have a great deal of background with energy, but don't we want to keep using a lot of energy (so long as it moves towards alternative sources)? More energy use creates more jobs. More jobs means more people to buy energy. It becomes a cycle.
- magus_melchior, on 12/14/2008, -0/+1The current weakness is the stability of algae-- there are diseases that will attack algae, and some may be sensitive to the water temperature (minor stuff, IMO, but concerns nonetheless). One can engineer resistant algae, but then you'd have to think about what needs to be done if/when it goes out in the wild (I'm not a big fan of engineered bacteria for this reason). Heck, you need to be careful if you're working with non-native stuff anyway, as some can wreck marine life if they get outside the production facility and into local rivers or oceans. Algae is great stuff, but it pays to be aware of potential problems. Still, the potential benefits are enormous-- limited land use, orders of magnitude more efficient than corn, and possessing a greater range of potential applications. If there's going to be an algae lobby, I'd like to be a part of it.
A few really cool algae ideas:
- CO2 sequestration of fossil fuel-based power plants. This is not a joke-- there are actual plants testing this idea (though the locations escape me for the moment).
- Waste water filtration/treatment that's not only incredibly efficient, but greener.
- Not only generate biofuels, but potentially the entire range of petrochemicals so industries like polymers aren't left out. Excellent alternative to corn feed for livestock, and rich in the omega-3s that we desperately need. - mastersmite, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1efficiency is partly the job of the driver. I can get anywhere from 24 mpg to 35 mpg in my Honda Civic Si depending on how i drive it. drive it like an 8000rpm engine is supposed to be driven, i get 24 very fun miles per gallon, drive like an old lady, shifting at 3000 rpm, never going above 60 mph, hello 35 boring miles per gallon.
Top Gear did a comparison of a BMW M3 (E92) and a Toyota Prius on a lap around their test track. The Stig drove the Prius, and Jeremy Clarkson was in the M3. The M3 actually got better mileage than the Prius because the prius was having to work much harder to run its lap than the M3 was working to just keep up with the hybrid. - secrity, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1It would make a mess; there be crap in butter besides just fat. The butter would need to be clarified first.
- rizzo2008, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1forgot crops sugar, corn, soy or otherwise when you can produce biofuels from synthetic microbes, algae, or waste
- rizzo2008, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1Alright you give up your car first then I'll start listening. Its easy to tell someone they have to give up modern luxuries to conserve but its not so easy to do it yourself.
- rizzo2008, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1 I think the point he is making is that efficieny also depends on how you drive and not just the vehicle you are driving
- magus_melchior, on 12/14/2008, -0/+1Please, don't conflate biofuels with the boneheaded ideas of the Iowan corn lobby.
- Countess666, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1Denmark already get 20% of it power from wind energy, and Germany gets 20% of its power from solar energy. so its very possible, with today's technology, to get a significant amount of your power from renewable energy's
en yes lets store our nuclear wast that will be highly radioactive for at least 10.000 years (and less radioactive for another 10 to 20.000 years afterwards) in a geologically unstable area that is extremely hard to reach where the risk of the containers starting to leak is not insignificant. and once leaking it will spread nuclear wast material through the entire ocean....
the LAST thing you want in a nuclear storage area is geological instability.
nuclear wast storage is not a insignificant problem. - magus_melchior, on 12/14/2008, -0/+1The better argument is not whether iisabelle ought to put her money where her mouth is, but whether enough people can change their lifestyles to match hers or come reasonably close.
I'm sure a lot of people should make sacrifices in their lives to help out, iisabelle. But the reality is, in the current economic and social climate, this is impossible for many people, especially those who don't live in cities. Take suburban southern CA. The only alternatives for me to driving 20 minutes to work is biking for 2 hours, taking the bus for 1.5 hours, or driving to the nearest train station and endure a compound commute for 40 minutes to an hour. If there is a problem with any of these links, be it traffic or a train mishap, I'm late for work, and I'm paid by the hour.
I am sure that a lot of things will be better if one could force the issue. But that's another can of worms altogether. - SirCharge, on 12/13/2008, -0/+1Non-edible plants still require land to grow. Ultimately that takes away from the land that can be used to grow edible crops. Rotting butter requires land to raise crops to feed cattle and land to raise cattle. Any biosource fuel is going to take land to cultivate and that will increase the cost of food because less food can be produced for society in general. Not saying that this makes biofuels a failure, I just don't want folks to kid themselves into believing this is free energy.
- Flyman360, on 12/14/2008, -0/+1OK, I won't!
What can be done then, to prevent my sarcastic solution from being adopted by boneheads when farmland yields more money producing corn-ethanol biofuel? - inactive, on 12/14/2008, -1/+2Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear.... Energy is not a problem -- Politicians and oil-companies are!
- Kangalanatolian, on 12/14/2008, -0/+1Nuclear is definitely an answer. So is Hemp. This is an extremely efficient biofuel producer, and is a natural to America, For the prohibitionists among you, this variety is also not a drug, though it is STILL illegal, which is the present problem with it.
- greensky, on 12/14/2008, -0/+1Until we come up with a decent solution to nuclear waste, it's not really a great solution... Tossing nuclear waste in the ocean is eventually going to catch up with us... Here is a good discussion of Nuclear power from the WSJ energy capital blog...
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/12/ ... - Flyman360, on 12/13/2008, -2/+2Instead of using farmland to make beer or feed the starving people of the world, lets use it to grow more biofuel. Problem solved!
/s - iisabelle, on 12/14/2008, -0/+0It's naive to think that we will use landfill waste to make biofuel.
But you have a point. I'm just saying that the focus should first be on conservation and adaptation. We do need to develop alternative energy methods, but that's not the only thing we have to do. - mastersmite, on 12/13/2008, -0/+0yes, that is correct.
- magus_melchior, on 12/14/2008, -1/+1It's not the number, but the presentation thereof. I'm sure you wouldn't stand a top 5 list that put every item on an ad-laden page.
- compwiz45, on 02/26/2009, -0/+0This is some pretty crazy stuff!
http://www.squidoo.com/makecomputerrunfaster - iisabelle, on 12/14/2008, -0/+0I don't have a car. I walk, bike and take public transportation.
I've already made the changes to my life. I just want other people to make changes to theirs.
But now you're just going to call me a hippie to try to discredit what I'm saying, right? - iisabelle, on 12/14/2008, -0/+0More energy use does not create more jobs, especially when many of the renewable energy generators do not require workers, only upkeep every so often and the original construction. But that also means that less energy use will not cause unemployment.
- inactive, on 12/13/2008, -1/+1Focus on it all you want, but you're not going to change anything.
- Countess666, on 12/13/2008, -0/+0even those will very likely based on algae, because with them your halfway there allready, and they are pretty efficient.
- Titan615, on 12/13/2008, -1/+1So I have one question why not just build high efficiency 3rd generation nuclear power plants, and take that nuclear waste, vitrify it and dump it into an uninhabited part of the Marianas Trench?
Turbines are great for areas that have 24/7 wind, but we have no storage capacity for either when generate excess, or when we are in need of more power. Nuclear power plants are the most "efficient" way to produce power.
Eventually when we perfect more robust, wasteless forms of power generation we can phase out the aging nuclear infrastructure. - 3tcp, on 12/13/2008, -1/+1Man, 19? This website needs to learn how to make a top 10 list.
- addakorn, on 12/13/2008, -2/+1yeah, butter would be pretty easy. I am certain that if I poured it into my 300D and it was 95 degrees or more it would run off of it
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is