What is Digg?158 Comments
- inactive, on 02/26/2008, -2/+29Biofuel is a bad option if your getting ethanol from corn but ethanol from Switchgrass, Algae etc. is a good option.
- aosik, on 02/26/2008, -6/+25Planes should be powered by hot air blown on digg.
- Sandhog, on 02/26/2008, -2/+17Um...petroleum and fossil fuels are originally from plant matter...
- dwoloz, on 02/26/2008, -3/+16The problem with this lies in the colossal amount of fuel airliners consume and the limited supply of biofuel (and subsequently then the consequences of converting land/crop to biofuel production)
- ScottooMc, on 02/26/2008, -37/+50Planes should be powered by the blood of Greenpeace activists and global warming propagandists.
- inactive, on 02/26/2008, -0/+9We're trying to run a plane, not a fission reactor.
- thcobbs, on 02/26/2008, -0/+8That's why we need different ways of generating it.
- inactive, on 02/26/2008, -1/+9***** I hope you flunked physics or are still in 10 grade, people this stupid should not have a high school diploma.
- inactive, on 02/26/2008, -4/+11Can you imaging measuring a trip across the Atlantic in terms of bushels of corn. This biofuel crap is insane. Ethanol is a lousy fuel to boot. How about demonstrating an airliner running on liquefied natural gas? It is a much better fuel than ethanol, or even JP-1, and we don't have to starve the poor to make it.
- megadan76, on 02/26/2008, -1/+6I can just picture huge story gray towers reaching from the bottom of the ocean up into the clouds. Inside, billions of square miles of algae grow all the fuel we'll ever need.
Hurry up, 2035! - jawnboy, on 02/26/2008, -0/+5Well , gee since you put it that way, argued so eloquently then it must be true.
Hemp is in fact a good source of oil and will grow in soil that little else will grow in and since diesels were designed in the first place to run on vegetable oil seems like a good fit. - pintomp3, on 02/26/2008, -0/+5corn ethanol sucks, sugar and switchgrass are much better sources. the only reason the US focuses on corn is because of subsidies and tariffs.
- dromni, on 02/26/2008, -0/+5They say the fuel used in the plane is from Brazilian babassu. It is a plant so obscure (a kind of palm I think) that I am Brazilian and I never saw it. And certainly we don't eat it.
- MWeather, on 02/26/2008, -0/+5I'd be impressed if any Brazilian knew about even 1/10 of 1% of the species in their country.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/26/2008, -0/+4Which is why the market works.
- inactive, on 02/26/2008, -1/+5They should be powered by the Duracell bunny
- thcobbs, on 02/26/2008, -3/+7No, planes SHOULD be using anything that's safe, effective, renewable, and cheap(in that precise order).
Safe > Effective > Renewable > Cheap.... but if you can't get all 4, get the ones farther to the left FIRST. - Brownds, on 02/26/2008, -1/+5Already being tested on a B-52 @ Edwards AFB. So in a word yes it can be done!
- magus_melchior, on 02/26/2008, -0/+4I suppose a lot of blame is due to the farm lobbies for successfully equating biofuels with corn.
- vertinox, on 02/26/2008, -1/+5That was buried in the ground for millions of years not bothering anyone...
- razrielle, on 02/26/2008, -0/+4Fry: Why isn't this working?!
Leela: Some lazy or polite robot is holding it in. - bmunichman, on 02/26/2008, -1/+5yea..... making biofuel or ethanol from corn or other food products is, well, STUPID. Its no wonder thats the type the federal government chose to pursue. Corn is a valuable food, and it requires so much fertilizer and care to grow, and it leaves the ground sapped of nutrients. Look, its so simple, even the idiots running the government should be able to figure this one out:
Use plants that thrive in any type of soil that are NOT used as a food source. Im looking at you, switchgrass
Once methods to cheaply create ethanol out of cellulose instead of plant sugars we'll be able to turn damn near any sort of plant material into ethanol. Scrap wood! Sawdust! bits of plant that arent used when fruit/vegetables are harvested!
For the love of (insert your deity here), stop using corn! - dromni, on 02/26/2008, -2/+6I think it is more like an effort to escape the ever-escalating price of oil.
- thcobbs, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3Not initially, no.... But what invention is greatly efficient on first construction? Jet engines have had DECADES of work put into the refinement of the design. Image what could happen if we directed similar efforts in to alternative, sustainable fuel sources.
- ryan83189, on 02/26/2008, -2/+5Wouldn't the refinement of the biofuel into jet grade fuel defeat the purpose, environmentally and fiscally?
- inactive, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3Coconut oil is about $30 per gallon. Yeah, that's a great solution. Not to mention there aren't enough coconuts on the planet to fuel a days worth of planes. so by about 2PM coconut oil will be $200/gallon.
- konspence, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3Jet fuel is mostly kerosene when you fly on a commercial jet. Converting vegetable oil to biodiesel ( a drop in replacement for kerosene) is not an energy intensive process.
- Wargasmic, on 02/26/2008, -0/+37/10 nice effort.
- warriorscot, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3Doesnt need much converting, aircraft turbines will run on anything that can burn, military aircraft often have fuel selectors that let you run on high quality jet fuel to vodka all it does is reduce the engine performance.
- macwac, on 02/26/2008, -1/+4As long as the biofuel does not use basic feed or food stuffs as feedstock in the processes, but utilize waste materials that otherwise would decompose or be burned then biofuel will contribute to reduced pollution of the environment. Biofuels consist of: Biobutanol, Biodiesel and Bioethanol - for airplanes biobutanol is the better option..
- MWeather, on 02/26/2008, -1/+4You mean like saying curbing global warming will destroy the world economy? Those kinds of scare tactics?
- gak001, on 02/26/2008, -2/+5He drank coconut oil and jet fuel.... dude's got balls.
- trogdor282, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3"Welcome to Potfest! Cheech was gonna be here but he was afraid to fly on my biodiesel jet. Pussy." - Willie Nelson
- adrenaline33, on 02/26/2008, -1/+4***** ethanol subsidies.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/26/2008, -1/+4On the plus side, food will be more expensive and there will be less fatties.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/26/2008, -1/+4Higher food prices means less fatties. It's a WIN WIN situation!
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3That sure would cost more than $100 a barrel to get oil from Titan.
- Ramble, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3They can, jet engines will work on virtually any fuel, from methane to diesel.
- ZmannR2, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2srsly I dunno why we don't just start making gas from coal. We can get it all here in the US, and at the equivalent of oil costing $60 a barrel. Plus, we have hundreds of years worth of coal here in the US. It's obvious global warming isn't man-made, it's caused by the sun. In fact we are in a 10 year cooling period at the moment. Newer technology and coal gasification processes are EXTREMELY low on pollution. This is the answer until we can get something better like Helium 3 or some form of fuel from hydrogen or what not.
- DuffyDirect, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2hence my use of the word "domestic" -- dumb ass!
- cambob76, on 02/26/2008, -1/+3"This is the first stage on a journey towards renewable fuel"... and 5 dollar loaves of bread.
- inactive, on 02/26/2008, -2/+4Biofuel use increased Cost of Living on Food last year.
- brufleth, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2To clarify, any given jet engine will NOT run on any fuel. What Ramble is saying (and what is pretty much true) is that jet engines can be _designed_ to run on many different kinds of fuel.
The most obvious fuel issue (ignoring cost for the moment) for airliners is energy density. The fuel needs to have relatively low weight and volume. Most bio fuels actually have less easily extracted (burn it) energy than jet fuels.
Airliners might seem big but every pound is considered when they are being designed and obviously space is at a premium too. - liuite, on 02/26/2008, -3/+5POLITICIANS MAKING FOOLS OF US ALL
The Case of Ethanol as Motor Fuel by John Chuckman
Ethanol has always been a poor choice as a fuel, but the scientific and economic considerations behind that statement don't stop politicians from claiming otherwise. American use of ethanol blended into gasoline actually represents a hidden subsidy to corn farmers, a subsidy on top of other subsidies, because American corn production itself has long been subsidized. The American program, to be expanded now by a leader widely recognized for wisdom and insight, George Bush, subsidizes farmers hurt by the abundance of their own subsidized production. Subsidies plus the extent of Midwestern farmland suitable for its production are why America produces such an abundance of corn. Its use in motor fuel on any scale started as a way to stretch America's fuel supply in the face of Arab anger over foreign policy. But it does not really do this. Although numbers naturally change over time, ethanol has roughly 70% the energy content of gasoline, yet it costs about 40% more to produce and distribute. In order to deliver this economic bargain to motorists, the government forgoes taxes paid by the users of gasoline, taxes which, of course, pay for important government services. You don't need to study economics to appreciate that as a bad bargain. In the years since the original strategic argument, arguments for the use of ethanol in fuel have developed around its being a benefit to the environment. It is no surprise that many embrace this at first hearing: growing something for fuel just sounds cleaner and healthier than using a minerals dug out of the ground. But this is a false argument, false at several levels. If you have a certain distance to drive, requiring a certain amount of energy, you will have to fuel up more often, and you will be paying the same or more for this privilege with ethanol as part of each fill-up. The motorist, re-fueling his or her car, will not be aware that significant amounts of petroleum products go into growing corn before any fuel is manufactured. Tractors, harvesters, trucks, and conveyor belts don't run on alcohol, and agricultural chemicals aren't derived from it. It will be the furthest thing from the motorist's mind that ethanol for fuel cannot be shipped by pipeline, the cheapest form of shipping liquids and gases, because ethanol picks up water on it way underground, so ethanol must use more expensive truck transport, and what do the trucks run on? The motorist also likely will not be aware that while burning some ethanol with gasoline reduces carbon dioxide emissions, if you account for the carbon dioxide emissions of the corn's production, there is almost no net gain. A recent, published finding that ethanol increases ozone in the lower atmosphere is also unlikely to drift through his or her thoughts while squeezing the pump handle. Ozone is a constituent of smog which affects those with respiratory problems. Ironically, ozone in the lower atmosphere is itself a greenhouse gas. Now, corn is a staple food for many poor people, especially throughout the Americas, and it is a simple matter of supply and demand that if large quantities of corn go to fuel, poor Mexicans and others will be eating less because its bounty in the food supply will drop. In very small quantities, this effect is almost invisible, but in large quantities - and what is the use of such programs if they do not become large? - it will become painfully obvious. Canada's Conservative government , a government whose previous environmental minister became an international embarrassment to the country, is in a desperate search for some environmental goodness to smear on its face as political war-paint and has discovered the mumbo-jumbo of ethanol. Recently, it has run a television ad, over and over, done in fake cinema verité style showing vignettes of an odd little man with the sardonic smile of a skull asking citizens on the street about growing "our own fuel." It even features a scene of the would-be comic dancing spontaneously on the sidewalk with someone in celebration of growing your own fuel. It ends with another man announcing proudly to the astonished little man that his great hulking SUV actually uses ethanol. Will wonders never cease? Why do governments do this kind of thing? Well, ethanol as fuel allows you to brag about doing all kinds of good things - of course, the bragging is done by stating partial truths, but isn't that what all advertising is, partial truth? - while you dish out a new subsidy to some of your constituents. And you get to advertise what you are doing at the expense of your listeners. Ethanol-as-fuel's other great attraction is that politicians get to hide for a while from the real solutions, such as simply raising vehicle efficiency standards, which require some courage. What a sweet scam. - EtherGnat, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2It is, but stop calling me Shirley.
- konspence, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2FTA, the plane flew on coconut oil. Corn is involved 0% in the fuel the plane was using.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2Just wait til greenpeace hears that whale blubber is just that new fuel we need.
- thcobbs, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2And like saying Global Warming is going to destroy the world.
- frogman54, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2You all are a bunch of negative Nancy's. Isn't it worth at least trying some different alternative fuels out? Maybe see how they work in real life situations rather than just saying, "that'll never work" and not really knowing. Algae shows promise, and the other methods of biofuel creation have crude refining techniques at the moment, but usually, once they start putting things into practice, those methods get refined themselves. And the solution may not be just one type of biofuel...it could be using many types for different things. Maybe a global warming apocalypse is just alarmist liberals overreacting and we really have nothing much to be worried about...but I personally think that this is one of those "better safe than sorry" situations. Sure, it may cost us a little more for a while, and in the end we might find we spent that extra money on nothing. But the alternative scenario is that we might all die. I'd rather not chance it. So screw all your little facts and statistics and lets just start trying some of this *****.
- warriorscot, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2You want to try running a turbine on water go ahead.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 154 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