What is Digg?123 Comments
- insomniac8400, on 02/18/2008, -7/+32These asshats just won't give up. Corn is not a good source of fuel, period.
- gestalt, on 02/18/2008, -5/+29It's called crop rotation, dips**t. It's been done for a few thousand years and it's proven pretty effective at replentishing soil minerals depleted by crops. You might consider reading up on agriculture sometime.
- Ninnux, on 02/18/2008, -0/+13Speaking of sustainable... I just talked to an old colleague of mine who is now a assistant professor at MIT. He works with a group that researches optimizing various aquatic slime to produce biodiesel. The water filled jars sit on top of smoke stacks (not really, but they take the CO2 from the stacks) and turn sunlight and CO2 into long carbon polymers day in and day out. It's completely sustainable and carbon neutral.. The only hitch is optimizing the enzymes to make the process cost effective. I heard that and felt a lot better about the future of our planet.
- BrainedChild, on 02/18/2008, -3/+16NO corn, NO sugar. ALGAE!!!!! It doesn't force our food prices to soar, and it doesn't destroy the environment. Not to mention, you get to pump the waste from coal burning into the process and further help the environment/be more efficient.
- Spuy767, on 02/18/2008, -2/+15Agreed. Soy is a wonderful plant for putting things back into the soil. I'm failing to understand how thomoore thinks that humans have fed themselves for 20000 years.
- Oobitsa, on 02/18/2008, -3/+15It's not going to work. It's going to drive the price of meat, dairy and poultry through the roof. Science needs to move on.
- khil, on 02/18/2008, -3/+15looks like the price of popcorn is about to go up.
- mrmario, on 02/18/2008, -2/+13This idea is really dumb on the principle that we can not use a huge source of our food to drive our cars. We're already driving up the cost of food-- manly beef-- because of it.
P.S. I think we should go nuclear!!! - MeMongo, on 02/18/2008, -0/+9My dad worked for DuPont in Virginia and while they aren't completely evil, they aren't squeaky clean. They developed anti-freeze because the toxic chemicals they were spewing into a local river kept the water from freezing. Next thing you know, they "invented" Xerex.
DuPont is basically the reason that Hemp is (mostly) illegal in the U.S. Back in the 30's and 40's, when Hemp was being used for everything (fabric, oil, paper, etc.) DuPont, along with William Randolph Hearst went to Congress and talked about how Hemp is evil and it could easily be mistaken for "Reefer", so it should obviously be banned as Cannibis. In reality, it was a threat to Hearst because small newspapers could buy cheaper, better paper made out of Hemp and compete directly with him on cost, and DuPont realized that Nylon was being threatened by Hemp based fabrics. Now, thanks to an uneducated public, Hemp is assumed to be the same as Marijuana, when it actually contains little to no THC.
In case you are wondering, no, I don't give a ***** about Marijuana, but I would love to see hemp production back in full swing (as it was during WW2). If you don't understand why or think that I'm just some hippie, do a little research and see what Hemp can do for everyone. - shrewduser, on 02/18/2008, -1/+10what we're interesting in using is the energy stored in the chemical bonds from the plant matter, notably hydrocarbons, the energy is absorbed from the sun, i wouldn't worry about running out of hydrogen or carbon it will cycle in the atmosphere....
- Spuy767, on 02/18/2008, -0/+9I agree with corn being a relatively poor choice for fuel. Corn expends a lot of energy in unusable biomass, unlike a plant such as switchgrass of which a much higher percentage is usable for fuel. Corn also taxes the land on which it is grown far more than some other plants.
- sockpuppets, on 02/18/2008, -0/+8As the inventor of the meatmobile I completely agree.
- MacParrot, on 02/18/2008, -2/+9Hello, I'm Orville Redenbaucher and I think my popcorn just kicks ass on the freeway.
- houndeyex, on 02/18/2008, -2/+9Oh no! Then why aren't we all ***** STARVING?
- grayn1, on 02/18/2008, -2/+8We are placing too much emphasis on a crop that receives ridiculous subsidies from the government for usually net zero energy production, while Brazil's sugar cane-derived biofuel is much more efficient. Of course, we tax that stuff like crazy, making it too expensive to import...
- priegog, on 02/18/2008, -1/+7Yeah, if your argument is that the energy is somehow magically extracted from the ground you should really seek a refund on your highschool tuition. Let's thank the gods of chemistry and physics you are not in charge of energy legislation.
- LeeSoong, on 02/18/2008, -0/+6a corn oil press ?
- DrTubes, on 02/18/2008, -0/+4Gene scientists eh? Are they anything like geneticists?
- p51d007, on 02/18/2008, -7/+11I still think this is the DUMBEST idea......taking a staple crop food like corn, and using it for fuel.
Quit complaining when (its already happening) the price of anything associated with corn goes up.
Animals eat corn, we eat corn, people use corn in a vast variety of foods.
This "biofuel" crap is nothing more than a way for venture capitalist to throw a bunch of startup money at
something, drive the price of corn, then, they will take their profits and run. Those on the bottom of the pyramid will be left holding the bag.
Lets also factor in that (for now) it takes as much or more energy to produce "biofuel" than it gives. Also, it
takes TONS of water.
If you really want to use a food product for fuel, use something that millions of children would not care one
bit to give up. Sugar beets! Think back to when you were a kid.....you never liked em. Use that for a biofuel.
Or some of the grasses that some are trying to turn into fuel. Quit using a staple food product like corn! - lazyeyesam, on 02/18/2008, -0/+4The problem with biofuel, as I see it, is as the demand for crops such as corn for conversion to oil goes up so will the price. Is anyone else concerned that this will lead to pricier food in the long run?
- sockpuppets, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3No, you're a towel.
- duggreen, on 02/18/2008, -1/+4Gestalt is absolutely correct. Composting, and 'green manure' techniques completely replenish the soil. Additionally, plants in the legume family, which includes peas and beans, fix nitrogen out of the air (!) and make it available at the roots, for themselves and other plants in the same space.
- beetlecrazy12, on 02/18/2008, -3/+6►►►►BREAKING NEWS◄◄◄◄
You're a whore. - csb92376, on 02/18/2008, -1/+4... and the price of wheat, dairy products, beef ... not to mention the little-reported tortilla shortage in Mexico.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3The problem with using switchgrass, pot or Algae as an alternative, is that it will make the price of thatched roofs, hippy lifestyles, and hippo feed go through the roof. So it makes perfect sense that we used Corn instead.
>>OK, I think I just contradicted my own point. - montyscience, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3Corn is not the only biofuel - D1 Oils (www.d1plc.com) use jatropha plants that grow on waste land in 3rd world countries
- priegog, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3Indeed, research should go into simpler aquatic plants, which naturally produce much much higher oil percentages (some nearing 70% in dry weight).
Land plants, simply put, have to use a lot of the sun's energy into syntetizing cellulose which is needed to support their own weight. But of course, as you described, the infrastructure needed is much more complicated and expensive. Whatever the case, corn is not an optimal crop for oil producing. - k1down, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3Where's my monday morning perpetual motion machine article?
- inactive, on 02/18/2008, -1/+4$2.50
OK I made that up because nobody knows but it seems to be comparable to gas prices. - jdavid, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3This has the potential to make the Midwest VERY wealthy.
Silicon Prairie Baby! - MercFox1, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3Didn't Virgin Atlantic test algae-based jet fuel? JET FUEL! Why are we still on corn when we could be using pond scum (well, a specific strain of pond scum) to power our vehicles?
- VitriolAndAngst, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2Yeah, but then they can't make things scarce, and control who produces the biofuel -- what is in it for them?
Can't you think a little bit more, about the down-trodden filthy rich in this country? What are you, a commie?
/NeoCon rant. - VitriolAndAngst, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2Batteries are not yet that efficient at storing energy. You still have to carry around the mass of the battery, while fuel requires less weight (currently). You have to make the batteries, and then do something when they are used up.
I think you have to drive a Hybrid about ten years before you've made up for the impact of producing the hybrid car.
Plants store carbon as much as they release -- except for corn, which requires fertilizer (made with Natural Gas) and lots of water. It probably pollutes MORE than gasoline, because you burn it, and the fuel used to create it.
We should be moving to diesel cars, because OIL from whatever source can be burned in it. Alcohol-based solutions, have to be distilled out of the water which takes more energy. - VitriolAndAngst, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2You are talking about Algae biomass or pond scum.
Interestingly, the ancient Mayans (if I have the right Aztec people who later became Mexican), used to get a lot of their protein from Pond Scum. Very efficient stuff and about the best source of biofuel yet found. - MacParrot, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2Agreed. Don't spam your stories in posts that have nothing to do with it...or even at all. chances are your story will now be buried with the ferocity of a mother lion protecting her cubs from someone who doesn't know how digg works. Or something like that.
- evilpoptart, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2Theres already movement away from corn for most of these reasons. I believe there is a proposal to use algae which can be mass produced extremely quickly and with little nutrients.
- Amazetbm, on 02/18/2008, -1/+3E85 give you worse gas mileage than regular gasoline. In any case if they're going to get fuel from biomass they should concentrate on switchgrass and algae and leave food crops alone.
- thecarpe, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2Simpleton...Don't you mean Newkular?
-George W. Bush - VitriolAndAngst, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2I'm guessing there is a lot of chewing, and the re-chewing of Cud involved.
Have you ever seen grass growing? About the same, yet slightly slower paced.
/snark - Hosalabad, on 02/18/2008, -1/+3First of all, using the food supply for fuel is stupid. Even if you unsubsidized every farm in the country that can grow corn, it wouldn't be enough. Secondly, what's fertilizer made from? Fuel!
- hawk0168, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2Brazil subsidizes it's sugar cane production much the same as corn in the US.
- slvrbullet87, on 02/18/2008, -1/+3The problem with switchgrass being used for fuel is that you would have to sell it for the same price as corn or have the government give you money for growing it. No farmer in his right mind will plant his fields full of something that turns no profit
- mrhaines, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2That explains why the theatre charges so much!
- barbobot, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2it's egotistical to be curious?
- hawk0168, on 02/18/2008, -1/+3Total human energy usage in the world 0.471 ZJ
Total solar energy for the earth 3850 ZJ
fail much? - slvrbullet87, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2The problem isnt finding outlets, the problem is being able to charge a car effectivly and quickly. If every hour on the road you have to stop for 30 minutes it isnt a good idea
- Whackly, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Burning something that gives off carbon emissions isn't environmentally bad. The problem with fossil fuels is that we are burning and releasing carbon that had been stored underneath the earth for hundreds of thousands, or even millions (billions?) of years and were not part of the environment here at the surface that we all live on. If you burn a plant... say.. a tree... there isn't really an environmental impact since the carbon released can and will be no more than the amount the tree itself absorbed during its growth. Provided that tree is replaced and you don't cut down all the trees all at once... no problem. For that matter, screw trees. Try any old plant. You grow the plant and then convert it into fuel. We aren't quite there yet but someday we'll reach a point where we can plant, maintain, harvest, convert, and burn the plant and then burn the resulting fuel without releasing any more carbon into the atmosphere than what the plant itself absorbed while growing. This becomes more and more feasable as the process of fuel conversion becomes more efficient and more environmentally friendly itself. The current conversion processes require all kinds of nasty chemicals and energy input. So as the process of conversion gets better and the kind of material we can use to make fuel gets more diverse we will eventually be able to make biofuel out of any organic material with a safe and sustainable process. Of course that's assuming we don't just put up tide/wind/wave/solar electric generation plants all over the place and power everything with electricity and some kind of new battery technology that isn't an environmental nightmare.
- Whackly, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1And? In case you missed it my point was that people too easily dismiss technology. Did I say I advocated switching to electric cars and ceasing investigations into options? Indignant misplaced rant much.
- Vash3001, on 02/18/2008, -1/+2How much a gallon will that cost?
- skidooer, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1We use corn here because corn is a commodity. We have the equipment to grow it. We have the buildings to store it. It makes it really easy to integrate into ethanol plants. Something like switchgrass would require a huge infrastructure to be built before we could even consider using it for fuel.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is