What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
54 Comments
- johlorax, on 08/12/2008, -0/+17Algae biodiesel FTW!
- Victorface, on 08/13/2008, -0/+13Algae seems to be the best solution. They could photosynthesize the greenhouse gases away and provide a energy dense fuel. Most of the fossil fuels underground today were once algae and plankton anyway. This is just keeping the carbon cycle going. Could use heavy refining though.
- phibit, on 08/12/2008, -3/+12I'm glad people are realizing that ethanol from corn won't work. Most people just grabbed on to that idea because at the time there was nothing else, and it seemed like a good plan.
Ethanol from corn is just a waste of food, and there's not enough land or resources to grow enough corn to fuel us all. - rootman2, on 08/11/2008, -0/+7great article. so much possibility for alternative energies!
- Scaryclouds, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6Amen, we should make massive investments into algae, it seems very promising and we don't have to sacrifice land used for growing crops to grow it.
- rizzo2008, on 08/13/2008, -0/+6Any method that uses CO2 as a feedstock makes the most sense (such as algae). 4th generation bacteria biofuels are exciting as well that take CO2 and convert it directly to oil even more efficiently than algae.
- rizzo2008, on 08/13/2008, -0/+6Did you read the article? New biofuels are moving beyond human food sources, arable land, and use of frashwater to create the fuels.
- Barackalypse, on 08/13/2008, -1/+5Did any of you "big oil/ big automotive" conspiracy theorists notice that nearly all these biofuels are backed by either a big oil company (Shell usually) or a big auto manufacturer?
- sidrush, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4HHO gas??? Typical dime-a-dozen electrolysis scam. Not even worth discussing. but for skeptics
In a way, yes, it would require more energy to seperate the (2)H from the O, than produces in combustion. It would never simply recombine, due to the fact that O is not stable when unbonded (which is why it becomes O2, and H becomes H2. - thethinktank, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3That's not how it works, unfortunately. Even if a marketable electric car were available today, we'd still have 250,000,000 internal combustion cars on the road that need fuel. Electric cars should be the ultimate goal, but to get there we need smart, clean fuels. Biofuels are that answer.
- tehxen3, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3Smug could work well too.
- exomni, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3If it will bring gas prices down, let's hurry up and get on with it.
- thethinktank, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3And also, even corn ethanol doesn't use HUMAN food sources, it uses livestock feed sources. It doesn't take food out of the mouths of the third world poor.
- thethinktank, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3Where do you get those numbers? "Dozens of years"? "Quadrillions of dollars"? First gen ethanols are months away from being self-sustainable, the only hold-up is the lack of flex fuel cars to use them. Might do you a bit of good to do some research before you spout nonsense...
- DarkShroud, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Electric cars could do the job easily. They have a 100-300 mile range depending on the batteries used. That is plenty for going to work and/or school.
- DarkShroud, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Any sane person can see they're getting new cheap to produce products ready. I just wish Bio-diesel was on the list.
- RoflCoptah, on 08/11/2008, -4/+6if we could only use human stupidity as fuel, then we'd be set.
- rizzo2008, on 08/13/2008, -1/+3Why move beyond gasoline when you can make it in real time without drilling for oil? Gasoline is the ideal fuel except you currently derive it from crude oil (contains more energy per unit of volume than any 1st generation fuel such as ethanol and biodiesel). There is a reason it has been used for more than a 100 years.
The middle of the page mentions sugar to "green gasoline" processes and 4th generation biofuels at the bottom. My opinion is Synthetic Genomics plans to create a 4th generation biofuel from genetically modified bacteria that use CO2 as the sole feedstock to create a crude oil replacement makes the most sense (assuming they can overcome scalability concerns) will be the most viable solution. Think about it you dont have to replace current gasoline engines or change fuel distribution infrastructure which saves trillions of $ in costs (more economically viable and completely carbon neutral). - jamesdew, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2no
- proto, on 08/13/2008, -1/+3"Why move beyond gasoline when you can make it in real time without drilling for oil?"
Well, here's a reason: the way we currently convert gasoline's energy into moving a person around is really inefficient. Of all the energy contained in the fuel, only about 1/8th makes it to the wheels to provide propulsion. About half of that goes into heating the air as it's pushed aside, heating the tires through deformation, and as simple waste heat when idling at a stop. The remaining energy that actually goes into acceleration is then converted to heat by the brakes when the vehicle comes to a stop.
All of these steps represent points of possible improvement, but the worst offender is the first: the internal combustion engine. It would be REALLY nice to get rid of that and replace it with some more-efficient conversion technology. It wouldn't have to be perfect. Heck 50% efficiency would be a dramatic gain. - rizzo2008, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Again its not a question of energy efficiency but energy density. For the time being battery technology cannot produce the 300+ mile range typical of most US cars and trucks. Until you can store the energy density of a 15 gallon gasoline or diesel tank in batteries with similar weight, space constraints there will always be a need for internal combustion engine vehicles.
- javajockey, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1from zfacts.com
Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That's $1.45 per gallon of ethanol (and $2.21 per gal of gas replaced).
Even with high gas prices in 2006, producing a gallon of ethanol cost 38ยข more than making gasoline with the same energy, so ethanol did need part of that subsidy. But what about the other $1.12. Not needed! So all of that became, $5.4 billion windfall of profits paid to real farmers, corporate farmers, and ethanol makers like multinational ADM. Why is it the farm states put up with this?!
As to why ethanol subsidies are bad? well, I could go on and on but what's the point.
Farmers have so many incentives to grow corn as a direct result of subsidies that are food has become crap. Corn is in everything we eat, from soda to spaghetti sauce. Do some research on HFCS to find out why it's bad for you. We were much better off using sugar.
Here is a good article on the ethanol scam
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/1563575 ...
My point? What is wrong with free market? Farmer should get paid for what their product is worth on the open market. Govt subsidies just screw with the balance. If a farmer feels that he is not making enough money, he can get another job. Guess what will eventually happen if enough farmers decide to find another career? The price of their crops will go up.
They will then have incentive to go back into farming. - rizzo2008, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Sounds like a peak oil doomer...yuck its gross!!
- tehWyman, on 08/19/2009, -0/+1Actually the meal from corn ethanol fed to cattle is, pound for pound, better than normal corn due to the yeasts that is used in the ethanol making process.
This comes from a talk I heard by a professor from South Dakota. - inactive, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1livestock feed sources eh? Could have sworn we eat livestock. And livestock need to eat in order for us to eat them.
- rizzo2008, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Algae gasoline!!
http://www.sapphireenergy.com/ - javajockey, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2@Sldrush, I have no problems with farmers getting paid to grow corn. I do, however have a problem with American tax dollars "footing" the bill through government funded subsidies. And for what? so we reduce foreign dependency by like 2%? It has already been proven time and time again, that ethanol does not reduce our foreign dependency on oil Personally I think the money would be much better spent on programs that would really reduce oil dependency; like mass transit. Amtrak is in desperate need of additional funding. The whole ethanol thing is a scam just to get votes from the corn growing states. Have you paid attention to how much corn has gone up a bushel?
- kru1e, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Or we could stick with electricity.
- inactive, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2Average yield for ethanol from corn/acre is ~250 gallons. Yield from that same acre using sugar or feed stock beets is 1000 gallons. There are many other possibilities using what we have now. Also, using things such as algae, etc. keeps the end user from producing their own fuel. If we want to become independent of foreign oil, we must be able to make our own fuel. We can do it individually or form small cooperatives.. .....We need to take the big boys (corporations) out of the picture. You can't be free and have to purchase everything.
- donna1234, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1Forget food crops. Future fuels will come from more practical feedstocks.
http://www.e-uuu.com
http://www.mad4.info
http://www.gogetfit.net - lornali, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Great article and good sources of biofuels mentioned in this article.
- stringerbell, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1You people are pretty naive! It'll only take a month to replace oil will it?!? So, in a month's time, you'll have the capacity to produce 90 million barrels a day of ethanol will you? This is the biggest infrastructure problem in the history of mankind, and you're going to solve it in a month are you - for free no less?!? That shows an absolutely complete misunderstanding of the problem. You know how much it costs to produce 10 barrels a day of biofuels? A million dollars. How do I know this? Because if it was any cheaper, there'd be thousands of these factories churning out biofuels (it would be cheaper than oil). The fact that there are so few means that it is a lot more expenside than that. So, just to build these factories (forgetting about shuttering costs of the entire oil infrastructure, pipelines, transportation, etc...), you need to spend at least $10 trillion right there (the entire world's tax burden for a year). And, that's just the beginning of what you need to destroy/rebuild to replace oil!
- TastyWheat, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1See this article? http://digg.com/general_sciences/Cheap_Catalyst_Co ...
The process has gotten easier, but still not Meyer-esque. - inactive, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1It's amazing how much energy gets buried in landfills...just thinking outside the square...
- rizzo2008, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2Because it is not a question of efficiency from tank to wheels but energy density. Batteries simply cannot match the energy density of a 15 gallon gasoline or diesel tank yet and cant reach the 300-400 mile range typical of most cars in the US. Batteries would have to account for half the cars weight if you wanted to match it and keep in mind that batteries lose their charge (and the electric motor would lose power) as they are used more and more while gasoline motors still have the same power at 1/1 tank and 1/16 of a tank.
- jeanfreau, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1Both rizzo and proto make sense. That is why I am encouraged by the chevy volt concept.
- inactive, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Ever hear of grass? Cattle/hogs/sheep/goats don't need grain. They need grass. This country is full of grass.
- carolyn05, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1If the use of Biofuels will be taken concern/focus by the government, it can help a lot to many countries. Biofuels are really cheaper compared to the gasoline.
- jasonmacsween, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1Algae is the only reputable biofuel.
- ZutroyZuuts, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1What's sad about it is that even if you made your own fuel, the government would still tax you to use it. And then they give that money they took from you to back to big oil. Either way they get their cut whether they provide the fuel, or you spend your own money making it.
So competing with them can't drive down the price. Not until the government stops paying them subsidies. - bearcub007, on 08/13/2008, -0/+0While those numbers stringerbell cited aren't exactly legit, neither is "months away." Honestly, I think research would do you a bit of good as well...
- regeya, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1When the corn ethanol plan first got started, it was because there was an incredible amount of surplus corn. Now that corn ethanol is mandated and growing in use, there's not nearly as much corn. Go figure.
I guess the lesson there, and from the skyrocketing oil price-based economic crunch, is that no one fuel source should be relied upon in the future. Well...ultimately, as long as we're limited to planet Earth, we're more or less limited to one fuel source, but you know what I mean. :-> - conradmstroud, on 12/21/2008, -0/+0Here's another use for paper clips that will boggle your mind. When the zipper pull broke off of my favorite winter parka while I was out doing errands, I took it to a local cleaner to have it repaired. The lady behind the counter said she could easily replace the pull in just a few minutes for seven bucks. I thanked her for her
http://www.advanceddatarecovery.co.uk/
http://www.easyrecovery.co.uk/
http://www.LeinMallika.com/ManiLee
http://www.LifeMalayalam.com/MallikaLein -
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is