What is Digg?95 Comments
- danielbachhuber, on 10/11/2007, -2/+31I still want to see algae made to be a viable fuel source. The reports I've heard paint it as a wonder-crop.
- Ifishbein, on 10/11/2007, -4/+26At NeoSporin
That problem is completely overshadowed by the fact that bio-fuels don't produce enough energy to compensate for the amount of energy necessary to fix Nitrogen into the fertilizer. Before we even begin thinking about the amount of space necessary to grow enough plants to make us completely independent of fossil fuels, we have to realize that bio-fuels are not a viable alternative energy source. The only true "green" methods of creating power that are available now are solar and nuclear. Those are the ones that research should be focused on. - BrainInAJar, on 10/11/2007, -6/+22>"And that's bad why?"
>
>CO2
CO2 which is removed from the atmosphere by... (wait for it)... PLANTS!
bio fuel is a zero-sum game. You don't add anything to the air that wasn't there before, and what you do add gets sucked up by the next crop.
It's called the carbon cycle :) - tazx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17Newfam, nuclear fission is green*er* in that in mining uranium and then burying it, you're creating very localized damage: the strip or tunnel mine it came out of, and the disposal site that then becomes uninhabitable for a few hundred thousand years. This is far less environmentally costly than coal or oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Environmental_effects
Solar panels are costly to manufacture. Fortunately, they're not the only way of harnessing solar power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert
Once manufacturer, facilities output power with no or little emissions, again, much less costly.
Additionally, wave, tidal, and wind power are all viable alternatives too. With clean electric power available, hydrogen fuel-cell based vehicles or other reliable electric power seem the optimal way to go. - AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Ironically, it was Carter's 1977 Presidential directive suspending the reprocessing and recycling of plutonium that hurt the "green" prospects of nuclear more than anything else.
Every other country with nuclear power plants has been reprocessing the 99+% of nuclear material that goes unspent in the core due to reactor poisoning.
He meant well, but Carter's effort to stop weapon proliferation is primarily responsible for the massive pile of reactor "waste" we have to deal with today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing - zouden, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16Algae doesn't need fertilizer.
- Matt-lars, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Hemp isn't the solution to everything, but its a start.
- Tsen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Besides, coal plants don't JUST put out CO2. If being the leading cause of global warming wasn't enough, they also put Nitrogen oxides and Sulfur Dioxide into the air, causing acid rain. Plus they put out fly ash and mercury.
But guess what--funnily enough, there are also small amounts of Uranium and Thorium in coal, and coal power plants churn out LOTS of it over the course of a year. But, rather than having said radioactive isotopes as a manageable solid, they're distributed into the air we breath. A 1,000 MW coal plant puts out 5.2 tons/year of Uranium and 12.8 tons/year Thorium. This puts the radioactive emissions of a 1,000 MW coal plant at over 100 times greater than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of power.
(Source: Alex Gabbard, Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger?) - TVisdoG, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10"CO2 which is removed from the atmosphere by... (wait for it)... PLANTS!"
The flaw in your logic is that the plants we'd be burning would have been grown on crop land that previously was growing plants we didn't burn. So, there's still a net increase. - Tsen, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12@newfam:
You're pretty stupid, aren't you?
So having a relatively small amount of *solid* waste that can easily be isolated from the environment is WORSE than having hundreds of thousands of tons PER YEAR of toxic fumes billowing uncontrolled into the atmosphere?
I fail to see your logic.
Further, aphaeta is right: If we'd just recycle our nuclear fuel like several other nations do, we'd have much, much less nuclear waste.
Nuclear power is a very, very good alternative. Hydro, solar, wave and wind power are all also good alternatives. Each has its drawbacks--nuclear produces waste that is volatile for thousands of years, solar requires lots of space for relatively little power, wave power is limited in that delivering the power to inland locations is difficult, and wind power requires large amounts of land, similar to solar power.
Either way, they are ALL better options than coal power--which puts massive amounts of pollutants and CO2 into our atmosphere, kills hundreds, if not thousands, of workers annually (nuclear power, despite the negative stigma attached to it, has several thousand fewer fatalities, even when adjusted for sizes of the two industries) and provides far less power than nuclear power. - AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10With respect to the space issue, my understanding is that these alternative feedstock plants will ideally be able to grow in less fertile soil. So instead of displacing corn and soy, plants such as these would be cultivated in areas previously untouched by humans. The proponents are selling this idea like it's wonderful. Personally, I think it's a huge mistake!
It will be interesting to see how the Midwestern politicians, who have been pushing corn ethanol down our throats, will respond when they hear that their beloved constituents won't benefit from camelina, miscanthus or other grasses that are proposed as feed stock. - markopolo2952, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Um....this still means we depend on dead plants for fuel...
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13Why is it ILLEGAL to Grow the Number One Biomass Producing Plant for Bio-fuels?
http://your-rights.com/permalink/612/#612
Before you say it isn't number one, read the linked references, please! You will see that it is NUMBER ONE.
PLEASE read this article AND the many linked references, THEN please comment. If you feel that information in the article is false, please provide reference information to prove your claim. - fatdog789, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Hemp is not the same thing as marijuana; hemp is the legal, THC-free kid in that family. However, the two are often confused as one and the same.
- DTJunkie07, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8#1 Solar panels on roofs, #2 More Nuclear power plants that are dedicated to recycling the rods (to a certain point), #3 lots of new wind farms in places like Kansas, and maybe #4 some hydroelectric power for good measure. You see, every method I listed on their own merit would fail due to a lack thereof but when used in tandem, well anything is possible. However, using corn as a god damned fuel is just downright stupid and irresponsible.
- zlintux, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11And that's bad why? It's worked for life on this planet for millions of years ...
- Dylan16807, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7newfarm:
have you heard of fast-neutron reactors and reprocessing that can let you use basically all of the uranium and have waste that lasts only a tiny fraction as long? (plus you only have a couple percent as much of it)
1 disposal site is much better than ridiculous quantities of carbon that will stay in the air for a long, long time. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -10/+16"And that's bad why?"
CO2.
A non-oxidative reaction would be preferable to burning anything. I'd much rather engineer algae to produce electricity directly, ATP, or maybe liberate water and oxygen separately so we can recombine them cleanly. - BrainInAJar, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12why? from the sounds of it this plant's even better than hemp, so why bother with hemp?
seriously, you wanting to get high shouldn't interfere with actual, real progress; hemp isn't the solution to everything - remccain, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7and we're still BURNING fuel, right? Clean. yeah, right.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9I'm fully aware that you can't get high off hemp, it's just that i've never heard of a hemp advocate that wasn't a complete pothead
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@khyberkitsume: Everyone knows trees consume CO2 (at least during the day). And I'd be interested to see any facts you might have that say we have more trees now than ever, given clearcutting.
However, it's an open question as to whether trees raise or lower temperatures, apart from greenhouse gases in or out. Global warming is caused by solar radiation that hits the earth, is reflected, and trapped instead of radiating out into space. The amount trapped is a function of the albedo of the surface and the atmosphere itself.
Darker trees would seem to absorb more heat vs. reflect. But trees may also funnel heat into the ground, where it has less atmospheric effect (heating the earth, which radiates some, but not as much as reflected sunlight).
Trees would also affect the day/night radiation cycle, radiating energy when there is no sun. It's just not so simple as "trees produce heat."
Anyway, no one is arguing that we should have fewer trees. The question is whether we should burn them, or burn anything that gives off CO2. - thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Am I the only one who thinks that it might be a BAD idea to introduce a 3.500 year old variant of a crop that has mostly died out in another hemisphere of the world?
How fast does it grow?
How far do its seeds travel when pollinated?
How much does it compete with existing fauna in the area?
There's a lot more than "hey, we can turn this into fuel" that needs to be considered when futzing around with nature. Just go ask anyone in the South who live near a place where kudzu(the plant) was introduced as an anti-erosion measure. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6That would be nice if it were so easily true. Unfortunately, if all of the C and O that exists on earth were released as CO2 at once, we'd be living on the equivalent of Venus by now. The name of the game is sequestration (of sorts), having the carbon chemically bonded inside organic matter vs. free to bond with O2. And burning any part of it accelerates that process.
If, for example, we can make use of other chemistry that captures energy and releases it without burning carbon compounds, we'll be much better off. - newfam, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Hemp grows denser, faster than trees- Seed can be used as food source, fiber can be used as fuel, to make clothing, building material, PAPER, the fruit is of course, more expensive than gold- As long as you don't burn it- it traps atmospheric CO2 in its fibers- All while releasing O2 - come on people- Lets wake up, and stop the division, it really is quite simple :)
- khyberkitsune, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6@braininajar
Go read some history. Hemp was mandated by law to be grown when we founded this country. Washington, Jefferson, most of the founding fathers. PRESIDENTS advocated this, then the paper industry made possible by DuPont came into play and bought it's illegality, yet we still used hemp up until the end of the second World War. We used hemp oil as machine lubricants and engine lubricants. I've still got the P-1 Mustang maintenance manual that specifies a certain weight hemp oil for certain components. - bromac, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6The thing is, isn't this growing-a-plant-to-capture-sunlight-via-photosynthesis really just using Nature's solar panel?
Like solar energy to chemical energy? This is all BASIC science. Hell, we've been doing it for eons with firewood.
Nature's been doing it for a very long time. Maybe there's something to it. - NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6They just need to get off their arse and forget the stigmas and legalize industrial hemp.. XD
- adinb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5uhm, you won't get high from industrial hemp. As a matter of fact, I'm currently drinking a protein powder mixed in my tea that has industrial hemp as a primary ingredient -- 30g of the powder is 110cal, 14g protein (27% RDA), 8g fiber (31% RDA).
So, hemp won't get you high, but it may help you lose weight, gain muscle, or poop right. - primesucka, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4We don't have enough farm land for this type of thing to be a viable replacement. Remember, we still have to grow food. I've read that in order for ethanol to meet the demands of the oil dependent US economy we would need 500 million acres of arable land for the corn alone. We only have about 300 million acres and that's for food, so where is all this land coming from?
Most 'alternatives' have similar problems and low ERORI. Besides, it takes decades to switch energy infrastructure from one source to another. The s has hit the fan. - AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Any organism with vestigial sex organs is a "weed" in my opinion!
- dnissley, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Biodiesel dirtier than diesel
The UK Government’s decision to give a 100% fuel tax rebate on biodiesel shows either ignorance or dishonesty.
Back in January 2001, Associate Professor Jim Olsson and colleagues of the Department of Physical Chemistry at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg (Sweden) found that it is actually overall dirtier than ‘fossil fuel’ diesel.
The two forms of diesel take the same amount of energy to produce, and deliver the same amount of energy as it took to produce them. When they are burned, however, there is a huge difference. Burning oilseed rape methyl ester (RME - the most popular form of biodiesel) emits ten times the carcinogenic and air polluting emissions (e.g. 1-alkenes, 1.3 butadiene and benzene) as the clean fossil fuel diesel SEC1. This can be reduced by optimising engines to burn RME, but not by much. The only instance where RME is the better environmental alternative is where diesel spillage would cause severe environmental damage (e.g. on canals and farmland).
Some campaigners suspect that the UK Government’s enthusiasm for biodiesel is driven by the desire to create a market for GM oilseed rape (canola).
http://www.greenhealthwatch.com/news/latest/latest0701/biodiesel-destructive.html - remccain, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3EARTH FIRST!
(we'll strip mine the other planets later) - AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4From what source would the "pure" electricity come? Do you mean solar?
- AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I agree with prime and bromac.
Furthermore, if EVERY acre of corn currently in production were converted to ethanol, it would only replace 12% of our total oil use.
Hardly enough to keep us from depending on foreign sources of petroleum! It has it's place, but don't let the politicians convince you that ethanol is the solution to our energy problems!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13806142/ - inurb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3awesome news but algae is still top dog for long term biodiesel production.
- liuite, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3dandelions were introduced in N. America because of its value...now we treat them as weeds
http://plantsbulbs.suite101.com/article.cfm/dandelion_history_and_culture - tazx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Dopesick:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
http://www.ballard.com/
Produce hydrogen through electrolysis (powered through central green power: nuclear/solar/wind/ocean), pump it into fuel-cell powered cars. - bromac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The thing is, we're looking for something to REPLACE oil, and it might just not be a reality. This is just wishing thinking.
I'd still rather have bread and water if I was starving, instead of complaining that it's not steak....if biofuel crops can generate net positive energy, then some sort of human population is sustainable based on the amount of arable land on earth. And with algal crops it's the amount of ocean we can convert over and manage without polluting or scaling beyond where the yields are viable.
It's the same thing as timber - we can get more timber from sustainably managed forest, but people want a replacement for the massive short-term profits that clear cutting generates. One's viable in the long term, one isn't. It's that simple.
Of course, then again we live on a ball of magma, and we're having an energy crisis. Go figure. - AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Fortunately, DC is starting to consider these potential problems!
I know a weed scientist who recently gave a talk in Washington to address the potential invasiveness of switchgrass, miscanthus etc... He said the congressional aides present were very receptive (no actual congressmen attended) .
The question is, will these concerns be taken seriously in the face of a tremendous lobbying effort being put forth by corn and soy growers? - cdnbambam, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Bio-fuels may not contribute to global warming, but they still cause smog. Better to go electric or hydrogen (made cleanly)
- ImOnlySleeping, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4In 1937 Congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act which effectively began the era of hemp prohibition. The tax and licensing regulations of the act made hemp cultivation unfeasable for American farmers.
- adinb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Are you referring to breeder reactors in #2? Good, efficient source of fuel, but a bit of a security nightmare in today's geopolitical climate.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Yeah...because the links on that site are really unbiased. You must be on drugs if you take anyhting sites like that say as fact.
- AoiTakuma, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3biofuels are not the answer. they are not a fix for global climate change and carbons being released. They are only good for oil independence.
- JxnRags, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Does it anyone know how many gallons per acre this crops makes? I know that switchgrass is 1000 gallons/acre and miscanthus is 1500 gallons/acre. Scientists claim that algae can get 10,000 gallons/acre. I am curious if this is a potential biomass or just a fluff piece.
- andy3109, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@tsen
"@newfam:
You're pretty stupid, aren't you?"
If you took that ridiculous opening line out of a solid argument I might have found you intelligent. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4According to New York Times, bio-diesel will reduce carbon emissions more than pure electric cars. Also a bio-diesel car will last longer than an electric car with probably less maintenance Seems more viable to me.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/29/business/0529-biz-webCOAL.gif - liuite, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3you mean electric cars running on electricity from solar/wind/nuclear? where the electricity comes from is important
- centauri, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I want to see ethanol and biodeisel take off, not really even because they're good for the environment, but if done properly, would be cheaper, more efficient, and just generally better for everyone. The fact that they are awesome for the environment is even better, I really hope biofuels take off, because even if we goto electric, we have to generate that electricity somehow, and if we had biofuel power plants, or at the very least almost self sustaining power plants, i.e. wood powered power plants, that would have land that they were constantly growingtrees on to generate power, then using the ash from the fire to enrich the soil, to grow more trees, I know that would never fly in our culture but it makes good business sense to me to be as efficient as possible :D
-
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 