What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
CNET Top Weekly Download for Free Anti-Virus view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
83 Comments
- sodade, on 05/12/2009, -3/+22*****. Why is it every article about biofuels in the MSM seem to focus on grain based ethanol? Yes, it sucks. I get it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look to promising alternatives like algae or switchgrass.
Besides that, why no mention of the fact that our government has been blatantly subsidizing the oil industry by not making us pay the environmental costs at the pump. Pretty important thing to weigh when considering the economics of alternative fuels. - Feenix566, on 05/12/2009, -4/+17Corn Ethanol is just a ploy by big agriculture to drive up the price of corn. It's not a real substitute. It creates more carbon dioxide emissions than oil does. It actually costs more energy to create a gallon of ethanol than it contains.
Big agriculture is no better than big oil. Both industries play the policians like a fiddle. - taylorhempel, on 05/12/2009, -2/+12wtf... Is "stress test" the new buzz-word? If it is, i'm sick of it already.
- richmomz, on 05/12/2009, -13/+22This should come as no surprise to anyone who is informed about alternative energy sources. Biofuels just shift the pollution source from automobiles to powerplants so there's really no environmental benefit to them. All they do is generate profits for the big agro corporations and drive food prices up for everyone else. It's just another "clean energy" lobbyist scam (as is the whole Global Warming/Green movement in general).
- robbyjo, on 05/12/2009, -2/+8Before people are modding me down, consider plants that can be easily grown in a horticulture setting where you don't need a lot of land, yet it is producing a better carbon emission such as switchgrass (that's 90% less emission level than current gasoline). The research itself is still relatively young. Lots of options can be explored. Don't put it to death too soon. We will probably learn a lot of usable concepts even for ordinary agricultural settings. If all reasonable options have been exhausted, we can probably put it to rest. I'm thinking of possibility of hybrid between electricity and these biofuels. That'd be a reasonable future.
I am somewhat familiar to this research area, so it's not baseless for me to say these things. - robbyjo, on 05/12/2009, -4/+9Let the research done to perfect a better biofuels. I think it will reach a point where it is usable and environmentally sustainable. What people have done here is just trying to curtail an area of great research. Don't yield to the lobbyers, but don't stop the research just yet because we aren't "there" yet.
- yerdaddy, on 05/12/2009, -2/+7Another ***** article that tries to sell the idea that the rest of biolfuels have the same problems as ethanol.
- MorpheousMarty, on 05/12/2009, -5/+9Ok, first, biofuels don't shift pollution to powerplants, unless you mean a literal green plant. But assuming you were correct about powerplants, it is easier to upgrade a powerplant to keep your enviroment habitable than to make millions of people to buy new cars which do the same, so shifting the pollution source to power plants is a way to better manage the environmental impact of a people's energy source. Maybe a million people won't buy an ultra efficient gas powered car, but a million people might vote to switch to wind, nuclear or some other source which is just as effective.
I don't know how corrupt clean energy is, but there does seem to be an opportunity to invest now in technology that will save us the cost of undoing the negative effects of oil. If you don't think there are any negative effects, well, we'll just wait and see, won't we? - Clinojim, on 05/12/2009, -6/+10Screw biofuels. Give me nuclear power and a Tesla.
- mjoe, on 05/12/2009, -8/+12is there anything the government doesn't rig?
- Laminarcissus, on 05/12/2009, -3/+7I can't believe I'm the first person to mention that hemp biofuel was not a part of this analysis.
Why are all the legalization and hemp advocates so slow at this hour?
Oh right... - Taiyoryu, on 05/12/2009, -2/+5Aggro lobbyists pushing corn and soybeans as a biofuel when it's been shown to not to help reduce carbon emissions, in fact leads to a net increase in carbon. On the other side, you have the EPA upholding those findings. The only thing that corn and soybean based biofuel has going for them is that they're available now unlike some of the other biofuel sources that are still in development, hence the EPA does little to dissuade the use of corn and soybean until better alternatives hit the market, and uses projections based on these vaporware technologies to make corn and soybeans look better than they actually are.
I'm for less government in the private sector, but just the same, corporations need to get their noses out of government. - Lederhosed, on 05/12/2009, -14/+17Biofuels are such a pathetic racket.
- Phughu, on 05/12/2009, -2/+5from the article: "The amount of grain it takes to fill an SUV with ethanol could feed an adult for a year"
- robbyjo, on 05/12/2009, -2/+5Yes, that's an informed position. Corn ethanol is bad. Other plant ethanol is not necessarily so. People in Digg are not informed and pretty much being brainwashed.
- JQP123, on 05/12/2009, -6/+9Bio-fuel crops require land.
Food crops require land.
Farmers grow whichever crop offers the best return on their land.
Anyone who thinks that bio-fuel crops won't compete with food crops is not living in the real world. - Damaso, on 05/12/2009, -3/+5It seems like the oil industry has managed to make 'cellulosic ethanol' a synonym for 'corn ethanol', when they are not the same.
Switchgrass is cellulosic ethanol, and can be incorporated into a farmer's normal crop rotations - allowing for normally unused land to be producing biofuels during downtime.
No reason to stamp out agriculturally-based ethanol research just because corn isn't the best direction.
Hell, since switchgrass based ethanol is produced by bacteria, there hardly IS any pollution at the plant. Lets talk about oil, on the other hand... - kalvinb, on 05/12/2009, -1/+3There are plenty of non-food organic materials that can be turned into fuel.
Brazil can run on sugar because sugar is not an essential food and it has plenty of it.
If America was turning all the corn it destroys (to regulate cost and whatnot) into fuel then it might be something that could be done to alleviate some coal/oil usage. But instead the government is subsizing farmers heavily to turn food into fuel which just jacks up the price for food by reducing supply.
Without the government covering something like half the cost of ethanol, it would be far more expensive than regular gas. - hereticoftruth, on 05/12/2009, -1/+3I have a question. Which produces more useful energy in a year, an acre of corn or an acre of solar cells?
- sodade, on 05/13/2009, -0/+2The corporations have us underthumb indeed. I would love for an opportunity to have a profitable local bio-fuels fueled business.
- Schweppesale, on 05/12/2009, -6/+8Dude, he's right. Do you have any idea how many countries relly almost completely on American food exports? You're talking about damage to the planet, what about damage to already struggling 3rd world nations. Kids starving to death so we can feel better about our new Bio Fueled Engines. ***** that, there has to be a better alternative.
- JRowe3388, on 05/12/2009, -9/+11I'm sick of the corruption and the oil industries buying out politicians.
- doctechnical, on 05/12/2009, -2/+4Why do farmers need politicians to make ethanol out of corn? They've been doing it for many, many years without any government subsidies (see also "Moon Shine") - if corn-based ethanol biofuel is such a good idea, why do farmers need taxpayer dollars to subsidize it?
- JayTee44, on 05/12/2009, -1/+3shall we stop making ethanol from wastes that were headed for the landfill then?
What about algae ponds located in salt pans in the southwest? - WhiskeyLemur, on 06/30/2009, -1/+3"Why not put this surplus to good use? "
I concur - let's export it at steep discounts to help alleviate world hunger. - robbyjo, on 05/12/2009, -1/+3@JQP123: You misunderstood me. There are research area that can benefit both biofuels and ordinary crops. We have yet to know how to better manage rotational crops (for ordinary crop fields) so that we can produce better biofuel efficiency without requiring additional land. We have just begun on doing genetic engineering on switchgrasses or other potential rotational crops that can drive away pests / weeds during non crop growing periods. These in turn will benefit the overall production of crops, while at the same time getting better biofuels.
If these lines of research are stopped, we're really at a loss. - robbyjo, on 05/12/2009, -1/+3No water will not be possible. But little water is possible. Since plants like switchgrass don't need fertilizers, water used on them can be recycled with minimum efforts. Comparably, crop plants use much more water. If switchgrass can be used as a rotational crop of an existing field, you can basically wait for the rain (and thus no extra water is necessary)
- rizzo2008, on 05/12/2009, -1/+2not all biofuels require farmland or need to be "grown" (see algae and GMO bacteria).
- rizzo2008, on 05/12/2009, -1/+2exactly.
Algae ftw - aWombat, on 05/12/2009, -1/+2This is the worst, least informed, and biased article I've ever read about ethanol production. It reads like it was written by the oil industry.
- robbyjo, on 05/12/2009, -1/+2Never think that Corn is the only source of biofuels. There are LOTS of more viable options and more environmentally sustainable crops for biofuels, such as switchgrass.
- robbyjo, on 05/12/2009, -3/+4Ideally biofuels can be produced in horticulture settings where it doesn't need a lot of land and can grow easily. We need research to investigate which plants are feasible in those settings. Switchgrass is a promising one, but the research is still far from being usable yet.
- robbyjo, on 05/12/2009, -1/+2Even solar or hydro or wind energy has some side effects. Everything has side effects. When we find these side effects, we try to eliminate them. But please don't kill the research just yet. There are lots of ways the research can progress. Don't limit your options.
- MadN, on 05/12/2009, -1/+2Methanol is cheaper than Ethanol and is made (cheaply) from Natural gas, it works the same as Ethanol.
Nitromethane is made from Natural Gas and or Propane.
Neither is a "renewable fuel", but they are not produced by terrorist supporting kingdoms. - rizzo2008, on 05/12/2009, -1/+2No biofuels derived from crops and arable lands are a folly but the next generation of fuels will make this a thing of the past.
Algae and genetically modified bacteria will be able to produce fuel from sunlight, CO2, waste or saltwater on non arable land (southwest desert being ideal for sun intensity). - 1smartguy, on 05/12/2009, -1/+2>"Corn requires a lot more fertilizer than other crops and as farmers move to make this type of fuel, the size of the deadzone is growing rapidly."
Corn is hardly the crop that requires the most fertilizer. I just got done doing some online research on this subject. Wheat and sugarcane require more nitrogen than corn, although I had to sift through a lot of bs propaganda to find an unbiased source for that information. As far as which crops are most responsible for pollution running off into the ocean, corn is only a small part of that, contrary to what you might hear from an activist documentary like "King Corn". Vegetable crops and citrus are two crops that require a lot more fertilizer than corn.
Trivia: The crop that I found uses the most nitrogen? Bananas, however bananas do supply more food per acre than any other crop. I also found out that an acre of corn yields more cornstarch per acre than an acre of sugar beets or sugar cane yields sugar.
An interesting technology to reduce the amount of pollutants running off of farms is drain tiling as explained in this Agphd video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7zkkXIklHU&fea ...
They're big on drain tiling and have made several videos on the subject so if you're interested, check out all their vids on drain tiling. - Wag3Slav3, on 05/12/2009, -2/+3I say let the poor little bastards starve to death. Feed them and they'll be 3 more starving kids for every female that survives in another 20 years.
Let them die, problem solved.
Or we could feed them, spend money to EDUCATE them, and empower them to defend themselves against whatever tyrant is running their (goofy local republic)*.
But then they can defend themselves against US when we go and try to steal all the natural resources of their region. Just like we did when we had the CIA destroy the system that had been brutal, but functional, for the 200 years previous to our forays in "nation building"
(insert random banana republic starving children nation) - mwilhelm, on 05/12/2009, -1/+2do you have an example of a movement which isn't a lobbyist scam? I can't think of any - maybe pornography. The last honest business in america.
- robbyjo, on 05/12/2009, -1/+2If you think you can define the so-called theoretical limit on optimistic estimates of crops, you're wrong. Many plant researchers do not know the theoretical upper limit of yield and theoretical lower limit of costs. (Yes, I work with several plant / crop researchers) We're into genetic engineering which change the game significantly. We even don't scratch on the genetic by environment interaction yet while it's been shown that many genes are environmentally dependent. Theoretically, we can genetically engineer plants to use barren / inarable fields. So, we can plant these things on fields that are high in aluminum or calcium, for example. Or heck, even we can use desert or semi-arid fields for these plants. So, nothing to lose on land, really. Virtually nothing to lose on resources for food either.
- yacks, on 05/12/2009, -2/+3There's good ways to produce ethanol and bad ways.. You can make ethanol out of a lot of different types of wastes.. There is a cheese factory in Corona, Ca. that produces ethanol from it's cheese waste which in turn creates power to run the cheese factory.
- Wag3Slav3, on 05/12/2009, -2/+3That and repeal the ***** law that says you can't reprocess spent nuclear fuel in the USA but have to just store it while it's still dangerous.
Or maybe we could just get the tree hugging hippy vegan idiots to stop flipping out anytime anyone says nuclear so we could get some funding for a thorium based reactor. - osabr22000, on 05/12/2009, -1/+2They should use sugar instead of corn, for a few reasons. First, you get better ethanol from sugars that produces more energy, second we can get sugar cheaper from LDC's, and third this artificial increase in demand for corn has been one factor of inflation as corn prices rise.
- Enterres, on 05/12/2009, -1/+2Agreed. Article buried for being stuck in a hedgemonic power-struggle mindset.
Funding for bio-diesels should be a decentralized process whereby mixing tanks are sold at discount to farmers, and to locales close to anyone who has a deep frier.
Even though there are toxic chemicals involved in converting veggie oil, every school in the nation should have one of these as well. We can't use ALL of the compost, can we?
My high school had oxy-acetalyne, and that's potentially no more dangerous than methanol.
Otherwise the challenge is the same as ever - a struggle against the still rising power of the corporate agenda. - marytormey, on 05/13/2009, -1/+1Ethanol is a scam, poop is the fuel of the future!
- aWombat, on 05/12/2009, -1/+1It's one thing to make a little ethanol for human consumption, where you can charge a lot, and another thing to make it on such an industrial scale to make billions of gallons at a cheap price.
- robbyjo, on 05/12/2009, -1/+1I believe it's much better than 1:1 ratio if you count only irrigation and processing water since switchgrass mostly depends on rain for its water.
From: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/ornl_swit ...
"Advantages of switchgrass were described to be its minimum fertilizer input requirements, its persistence, and its effectiveness in reducing soil erosion"
There are still works on how to make switchgrass economically viable and optimize the output. Read the paper above. It's a good summary. - wicketr, on 05/12/2009, -1/+1Save the whales?
:) - yacks, on 05/12/2009, -1/+1what will we drink when we deplete our water sources?
- Wag3Slav3, on 05/12/2009, -1/+1And with the grain it takes to make a hamburger patty you can feed that adult for two months.
So what? Grain sucks by itself. We have ***** all tonnes of it. Turn it into something worthwhile, just don't make any more of it when we have a more effective way to do the same thing with the only difference being that some fat cats don't get as fat. - robbyjo, on 05/12/2009, -2/+2@JQP123: "So can food crops (hydroponics for example). But the cost of maintaining these "horticulture settings" increase the production cost which in turn limits their use. Efficient production of massive quantities of any kind of crop (food or bio-fuel) still requires land, water and other resources."
So does production of any energy have some costs. It requires many other resources, not necessarily land or water. With research, we can probably lower resource requirements and the costs. We don't know the bottom limit yet. So, why kill the research early? We probably can have great ideas anyway for ordinary crops from these research as a by product (say, minimizing land / water use). Switchgrass has been shown to be a promising plant, which can be used as a rotation crop and don't need a lot of water / fertilizers / other costs. It may not be the best one, but ongoing research will definitely help either refining the process or finding a better alternatives. -
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is