What is Digg?206 Comments
- TyrannousDotNet, on 04/15/2008, -8/+55stop making biofuel out of corn/grain!!!
Create it from straw or some thing else, its not that hard to figure out. - bromac, on 04/15/2008, -2/+36Biofuels from algae, which does not displace existing food crops, is the future of biofuels.
Corn is a poor producer of energy compared to other biofuel crops. Algae, canola and palm oil are all much better crops. We shouldn't be burning food and converting our farmland just yet. - lordewoks, on 04/15/2008, -1/+31"Right now, rainforests are being destroyed to make way for biofuel crops" Hah! How ironic!
- InsaneMachine, on 04/15/2008, -2/+29Higher Food Prices aren't good :(
- Harabeck, on 04/15/2008, -0/+20Just blindly jumping at solutions to the energy crisis wont help...
- llbbl, on 04/15/2008, -1/+19I hate when they lump together all biofuels because it gives the good type a bad rep. Ethanol (corn/grain) based biofuel is the bad type. Diesel (algae + food by products) based biofuel is a very good alternative.
- greensky, on 04/15/2008, -0/+16Algae has another advantage because it can grow in salt water which is more abundant than fresh water.
- jerrycan, on 04/15/2008, -4/+19If elected, I promise to....
1. Tax the ***** out of gas
2. subsidize FULL electric cars
3. build nuclear power plants by the ***** load now
4. start development wind farms and solar farms
4. STOP all biofuel and ethanol production based on human food sources now. Seriously consider stopping this sort of thing altogether. - ocbeta, on 04/15/2008, -6/+19Environmentalists are Corny.
- ryanwritescopy, on 04/15/2008, -1/+13What we need are cars that run on hunger.
- dromni, on 04/15/2008, -1/+11That is simple, just use sugar cane, as Brazil has been doing for 30 years, since the first oil shock in the 70s. Unlike what happens with corn, the process is energetically efficient, economically sustainable and has not driven food prices up. (Indeed Brazil and other countries have lots of unused arable land ready for sugar cane, so there is no displacement of other crops.) Nowadays people use more ethanol than gas in Brazil, the vast majority of cars is "bi-fuel" (that is, can use either gas or ethanol) and we are *exporting* part of our produce.
- Rbstr, on 04/15/2008, -0/+9Algae it indeed the future of biofuels.
Though I may just be saying that because I'm researching the stuff.
1800gallons per acre of biodiesel from algae where soybeans make up to 100 and that "diesel tree" everyone was blathering about gives about 200. - malex, on 04/15/2008, -0/+9Then you must be using WVO (Waste Vegetable Oil.) No threat to the food supply there, though it obviously won't scale very well.
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -4/+13Less food = less people = less carbon
Maybe thats the plan? - carpespasm, on 04/15/2008, -4/+13so because there are many paths toward a better fuel situation and no one of them is perfect we should shut up and burn our oil?
- br0ck, on 04/16/2008, -0/+8Not true. Corn has about a 1 to 1 energy output, but switchgrass produces 540% more ethanol energy that is required to grow it. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-be ...
- xptoast, on 04/15/2008, -1/+9It only harms if you use food products instead of things such as switchgrass which yeilds better.
- XTX7X, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7And oil doesn't come close to them in sustainability.
- dirigibleduck, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7There was an article in the Economist a while back arguing that it would be better for the world economy if food prices were allowed to rise and governments helped poor people get through it, rather than artificially deflating the price of food and making everything all screwy. It was a good point.
- sonycam, on 04/16/2008, -1/+8Umm, you're using common sense and logic, there's no way you'll get anywhere in politics.
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -0/+6yeah, it would be better for the economy as a whole, if you discount all geopolitical implications. the entire 3rd world could plunge into civil war / revolution (the warning signs are already occurring), and this would inevitably spread to or at least affect other countries. there's no better way to incite war than taking away somebody's food.
- pkScary, on 04/15/2008, -0/+6'Biofuel' is a pretty vague term. Different techniques for producing ethanol are being worked on. Corn ethanol has its issues, but at least the corn production is reclaiming some CO2. Corn produced ethanol is also a sort of 'first gen' biofuel, and there are much more interesting things in the works. Cellulosic type ethanol has a lot of promise, and doesn't come with a lot of the baggage associated with corn produced ethanol (fertilizer runoff, subsidy issues, etc).
A bunch of universities (including my own) are working on genetically engineering microbes that have a sort of 'swiss army knife' approach to producing ethanol. These microbes are able to break down cellulose and produce ethanol (among other things, pre-gene knockout). - Rbstr, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7That is far from true.
Biofuels from non-food products could very easily provide vehicular fuels (where other green/cleaner sources like wind, solar and nuke provide home/bussiness power)
To replace diesel fuel consumption in America with biofuel from algae we only need to use an area of land about the size of maryland. Than may seem large, but when you consider how much of the country is covered by crops of other sorts it is nearly insignificant. Not to mention that you can put up a bioreactor for the little photosynthetic critters nearly anywhere, like deserts. - bloodomen13, on 04/15/2008, -2/+8but I like my car to smell like a huge vat of french fries!
- feliks2, on 04/15/2008, -0/+6Saying that "you have been hyping it up" assumes that everyone who cares about this can just be grouped into one big "environmentalist" entity. That is not the case.
- themonkman, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5While I am 100% against the use of ethanol (E85), I can't say that I reject biofuels that are made from waste products such as cooking oils, discarded animal fats, and easily grown plant sources like algae or kelp. One of the first algae farms that will be used to produce biodiesel went online this year in the US. You could put an fast growth algae farm out in the desert if you wanted to, thus reducing impact on the environment. Kelp farms are also a great idea because of the rapid rate of plant growth and the fact that you can grow it fairly easily. The amount of oil that can be extracted from it is amazing, and the leftover plant material can be used as compost material.
You see, there are many biofuel critics whom don't have the mental capability to think outside the box, and there are also those whom are in the pockets of big oil. There is also the corn lobby trying to push it's own agenda. Don't believe all the hype you hear from either direction. - utahcanuck, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7Unfortunately, this is going to be a huge waste of time and resources. Regardless of biofuels positive or negative impact on the environment, increasing commodity prices are going to make this economically unfeasible. When people are seeing a bag of flour or rice jump by five dollars, they don't give a damn about what is environmentally sound. Same will go for corn if producers are encouraged to sell it for biofuel rather than food. Shameless short-term political pandering.
- carpespasm, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7in my opinion you can't have a good air car unless you have a low-impact source of energy to run the compressor for your air car. I'd say getting more nuclear plants running along side electric and air hybrids with gas generators rather than gas driven drivetrains would be the best.
- themonkman, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5ASeventhSign,
I don't know where your data is coming from, but in comparison to petroleum oil, algae or kelp oil only has a 2% energy differential, and it puts out less CO2 and other combustion byproducts than petro. - XTX7X, on 04/15/2008, -1/+6On behalf of the Internet,
GTFO
Thank you. - inactive, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5Popular Mechanics also had a good article on alternative fuels and associated costs.
Crunching the Numbers on Alternative Fuels
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2690 ...
Then there's this from Popular Science that outlines using bacteria to actually create gasoline. Very cool stuff.
Breeding the Oil Bug
http://www.popsci.com/oilbug - Stratochief66, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5The flaw isn't in all biofuel, but in food derived biofuel. So saying that biofuels have failed and to move on sounds like he is writing of other ways of producing biofuels, such as algae or switch grass.
- pilobilus, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7There is something fundamentally wrong with burning food in today's world. Especially since the only thing we get from it is the luxury of driving huge heavy vehicles as fast as ever for just a few additional years.
- Rbstr, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5Not all biofuel research and support is about what you think (mistakenly) about oil vs biofuels alternatives today. It's also about what we do when we run out of oil.
Like it or not, we are going to run out. Even it the kooky abiogenesis of oil theory that the russians love is real, we are extracting it far faster than any models show it being produced by the earth. - InsaneMachine, on 04/15/2008, -3/+7I dugg you up. You forgot your sarcasm tag though.
- bdbr, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4The increased demand for land, due to increased demand for sugar cane has increased the rate of deforestation.
- proliance, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4We're burning our food. What sense does that make?
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4I think we should process the dead an eat them.
- themonkman, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4That depends what source the biofuel is being made from. Read my comment below. I do find it hard to take someone seriously that uses the word "tard", though.
- Bkaufman, on 04/15/2008, -4/+8The only viable (within the next 10-20 years or so) alternative energy is nuclear. Obviously it isn't ideal, but its damn safe (people don't realize how much safer nuclear plants are now since three mile island and Chernobyl, and even those were freak events which needed multiple failures to occur), and its the only means we have of producing cheap enough energy that won't release green house gasses. All of the "green" energy ideas are too expensive, or cause adverse harm in other ways (like biofuels).
- carpespasm, on 04/15/2008, -5/+9except the reason they use corn/grain is because of it's high sugar content, which means they have to plant less of it and use less land to get the fuel. You can argue that the corn and grain should be used for food before using it as fuel, but if you use straw you still have to grow the straw somewhere, and it would require more land to get the same amount of fuel from straw than corn or sugar cane.
- Y0tsuya, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4I think the idea is to test the thing before pushing it on a massive scale. Current mass-market biofuel production methods are half-baked, and premature adoption of it is getting people killed. You know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- dirigibleduck, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4The problem is, American farmers are a very powerful lobby in Washington, and they don't want us engaging in that icky "free trade" stuff just because it would be good for the economy/environment in the long term and bad for them in the short term. Also, labor standards in Brazil aren't too good, so we should help them with that if we want to start importing their cheap, good sugar-based ethanol.
- krnldmp, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3And grow it where food wont.
- whyufail, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4The problem is not with biofuel itself. The problem is the method they've adopted is the worst possible way of doing it.
- XTX7X, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4Yes, let's just keep burning it for the thirty years we have left, melt the ice caps, and spew carcinogenic particles into the air.. then at least we won't be hippies!
- JettaMan, on 04/15/2008, -2/+5This is why government regulations are a huge mistake. The free markets determine what is efficient, and efficiency (using less resources) is environmentalism. If we didn't have this parasitic 40-50% tax burden we would all have to work less to make the same amount of wealth we currently create. That reduction in work would result in a huge benefit to the environment, plus our lives would be a lot easier and happier.
- antdude, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4Will you starve to death? :)
- CarStan, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3I'm surprised to hear that the U.K. didnt scrap the Biofuel rule like we Germans did. It turned out that many old cars would end up having problems with the new fuel and some even wouldnt drive anymore. They knew that before of course, but they downplayed the numbers and only talked about 'German Cars'. They just recently admited that the number of 'foreign cars in Germany' would be even bigger and would have even more problems, so they sraped the law.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the U.K.'s cars - themonkman, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4Man, you are ignorant. There are plenty ways of producing energy to create clean fuels like hydrogen for fuel cell electric cars. You can use solar photovolaic cells to generate electricity from the sun, that breaks down water into O2 and Hydrogen, use that hydrogen to put into electric fuel cells which generate electricity to drive the car.
There is a guy in New Jersey who built a house around this. His roof is covered with solar cells. The electricity produced converts to long storage hydrogen that stays safe in fuel cells which power his home and even stores enough to get through the winter months and power his electric car. He has plenty left over even after that.
Wargalas is just another one of those people who just listen to TV and radio pundits because they can't think for themselves. If they are told something is bad, they never question why or if the person is incorrect. The problem with alternative fuels isn't the goal, it's the method of obtaining the energy. If we were to use even 10% of the energy the sun beams to us daily, we could shut down all the nuclear, coal, and even geothermal power plants. All of the hydroelectric dams could be shut down, too. That's just from 10% of the suns energy. Think of what we could do if we were able to harness 30% of it, or the kinetic energy of the ocean. The amount of energy in this world is near infinite. It's those ignorant closed minded people who can't see past the status quo and politics. -
Show 51 - 100 of 204 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