So much for biofuels...

[Lyion]

http://environment.newscientist.com/art ... stead.html

Burning oil and planting forests to compensate is more environmentally friendly than burning biofuel. So say scientists who have calculated the difference in net emissions between using land to produce biofuel and the alternative: fuelling cars with gasoline and replanting forests on the land instead.

Righelato and Dominick Spracklen of the University of Leeds, UK, calculated how long it would take to compensate for those initial emissions by burning biofuel instead of gasoline. The answer is between 50 and 100 years. "We cannot afford that, in terms of climate change," says Righelato.

The researchers also compared how much carbon would be stored by replanting forests with how much is saved by burning biofuel grown on the land instead of gasoline.

They found that reforestation would sequester between two and nine times as much carbon over 30 years than would be saved by burning biofuels instead of gasoline (see bar chart, right). "You get far more carbon sequestered by planting forests than you avoid emissions by producing biofuels on the same land," says Righelato.

[10sun]

Just what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

[Arlos]

Of course, the question is, can you convince farmers to let you plant forests on their land?


Also, it seemed like that study focused on the replacing of ALL fossil fuels by bio equivalents. How about just bio-diesel as a replacement for fossil diesel?

How about the effects of converting existing croplands to the use of Hemp? Hemp oil can be used, right now, in standard diesel engines. Furthermore, hemp is, after all, a weed. It needs little to no irrigation, no pesticides, etc. So none of those considerations the article mentions about Corn apply in any way to Hemp. Also, the rest of the hemp plant is usable to, you don't have to burn it off. You can use it for animal feed, turning the fibers into rope or fabric, etc. (standard disclaimer: Industrial hemp has no THC in it whatsoever. None. Furthermore, planting pot in hemp fields ruins the pot, because the cross pollination destroys the THC content in the pot plants) Heck, once they figure out the whole "ethanol from woody grasses" bit, you could use the hemp for that too, as that's what it is.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

Just what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

European or African?

[Yamori]

I sort of thought the main point of biofuel was to have a stable energy supply and to lessen our middle eastern interests... and the environment a distant second.

-

I can't believe industrial hemp isn't legalized yet. It's absolutely insane and mindless.

Arlos- have you heard of any bills put up in congress to legalize it... ever?

[Tikker]

I sort of thought the main point of biofuel was to have a stable energy supply and to lessen our middle eastern interests... and the environment a distant second.

That's the impression I was under as well

it was merely a sustainable source of fuel, as opposed to the limited resources of fossil fuels.

it's also a lot cleaner to produce biofuel as opposed to fossil fuel.


that being said, I don't think biofuel is THE answer, but a transition away from traditional sources

[Arlos]

No, Yamori, I haven't heard anything. The only time anything was done with it was in WWII, when they found that it was just too useful for the war effort, legalized it temporarily, encouraged people to grow it, etc. Soon as the war ended, boom, it was lumped in with Demon Marijuana again, and that's the last it was left at. I think you are allowed to grow like 4 or 5 plants of it at once or something, which is how those people selling hemp stuff at concerts or whatever do it, but still not legal for an industrial operation.

Obviously I wouldn't be for cutting down forests to allow planting of biofuel crops, that's insane. But there are still a number of benefits to going to biofuels, especially hemp. Hell, as I have said before, hemp makes better paper than tree pulp, so planting big fields of hemp not only gets you CO2 scrubbing from the "woody grasses" that hemp is one of, but you also cut down the need for logging, so less trees get felled.

I will never understand why industrial hemp is illegal, ever.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

$$ controls the lawmakers, and they have nothing to gain from it over the money oil brings them.

[Lueyen]

My real concern with bio-fuels and an increased demand is the effect it would have on the food market. I don't know 100 percent what the effect would be as demand increases (it really depends on the level of increase), but when you consider that corn is used to feed live stock, and corn is in many of the products you buy in the grocery store, not to mention depending on the market price some farmers choosing to grow products for bio-fuel rather then food sales, well the effect on your grocery bill could be hard to swallow (yes that was a pun :P).

The thing is as fuel prices rise, if it forces people to conserve in many cases they can and will. When it comes to groceries, yea you can conserve some, but it's not like you have the alternatives you do with transportation.

Arlos, just something you might find interesting and the planting trees instead of crops reminded me of it. There is a farmer who owns a large tract of land bordering the interstate in NE Oregon. The guy grows a hybrid form of poppler(sic?) trees which he harvests for paper pulp. The thing is these trees have been genetically engineered to mature in about 4 years and he plants/harvests them in succession so that every year he has a harvest, leaving 3/4 of the trees (and it's a huge area). So yea trees beyond fruit trees can be a cash crop, if not a food crop.

[Tossica]

Right now we have so much corn, the government pays farmers to NOT grow it. I wouldn't worry about a corn shortage.

[Tikker]

I think canola is higher yield for oil than corn anyway

[Lueyen]

Right now we have so much corn, the government pays farmers to NOT grow it. I wouldn't worry about a corn shortage.

That may be in the here and now, however there is another problem in the picture that has really only started to manifest in recent years. Much of the irrigation for crops in the middle of the country comes from a giant underground water table. The problem is that for some time more water is being used then replenished. This regardless of adding additional demands for bio-fuel is going to be an on going problem and frankly is something to be concerned with either way.

The real problem is that a gallon of ethanol is not as efficient as a gallon of gasoline, and the amount of acreage it takes to produce is quite substantial.

Also farmers paid not to grow corn, generally grow something else, encourage them due to demand to produce corn and you start sliming down production of something else for instance wheat or soybeans.

There are a lot more aspects of this then just comparing our surplus corn production to the equivalent projected usage of ethanol... and frankly those projections are staggering anyway (like around 25 percent).

More likely we'll actually still be importing fuel, but instead of the middle east it would come from South America as sugar cane is a much better base for ethanol. And while that might make more sense, again our energy dependence is on foreign sources.

I think canola is higher yield for oil than corn anyway

If the goal is for energy independence then canola unless it can be grown in the US (and I'm not quite sure how well it would do as a crop) is again placing our dependence outside our own resources, albeit with less volatile sources (60 percent of the canola oil produced comes from Canada).

Any idea on the comparison between canola as a base and sugar cane? Frankly if we are going to be importing fuel I'd rather be importing from Canada then many of the South American countries.

[Lyion]

Electric Cars & Nuclear Power Plants. There you go.

Unfortunately the enviro crazies who are so worried about the environment fight against Nuclear Power tooth and nail, even though it is an easy and quick method of green energy and getting solving our dependence on foreign fuels without effecting our crop supplies or anything else...

[Snero]

They do admit, however, that biofuels made from woody materials such as prairie grasses may have an advantage over reforestation – although it is difficult to say for now as such fuels are still in development (see Humble grasses may be the best source of biofuel).

rapeseed = canola

[Tikker]

I can't imagine why canola wouldn't grow in the US. and snerp is right

they friendly name for rapeseed is canola

there's a town in saskatchewan here (Tisdale) who's motto is "The Land of Rape and Honey"


at the time when the motto was created, rape as a crime was pretty much unheard/unknown in the parts, jeje

[Arlos]

I say again: Nuke plants are *NOT* green energy. The wastes they produce are some of the most lethally toxic substances known. Many of them only become less dangerous over GEOLOGIC time periods, and thus must be stored somehow, indefinitely, without destroying their container, leaking into groundwater, etc. etc. etc.

Plus there is, you know, the ever-present risk of a substantial "Kaboom"... like nearly happened in 3-mile island, and did happen in Chernobyl. (Yes, I know it used a different design than american reactors, and had less safety gear, etc. Doesn't change the fact that the risk is still non-zero.) Or, what if it's in a coast area and gets hit by a hurricane and/or tornado. Is everything on the thing safe from 150-300mph winds and large flying debris? How about out here in CA, what happens if it's near the center of an 8+ earthquake?

-Arlos

[Evermore]

I say again: Nuke plants are *NOT* green energy. The wastes they produce are some of the most lethally toxic substances known. Many of them only become less dangerous over GEOLOGIC time periods, and thus must be stored somehow, indefinitely, without destroying their container, leaking into groundwater, etc. etc. etc.

Plus there is, you know, the ever-present risk of a substantial "Kaboom"... like nearly happened in 3-mile island, and did happen in Chernobyl. (Yes, I know it used a different design than american reactors, and had less safety gear, etc. Doesn't change the fact that the risk is still non-zero.) Or, what if it's in a coast area and gets hit by a hurricane and/or tornado. Is everything on the thing safe from 150-300mph winds and large flying debris? How about out here in CA, what happens if it's near the center of an 8+ earthquake?

-Arlos

you mean like Diablo? Built right on top of the fault isnt it?

[Tikker]

nuke plants aren't about green energy either, but rather independence from oil

until I can figure out how to make ZPM's we're a bit stuck

[Lyion]

Actually Nuclear power is the only real method of going green, realistically speaking. No other method can do what it can, if climate change and carbon emissions are the problem now, as well as a safe reusable energy source. The other suggestions are not viable now or for the foreseeable future. If they were, great, but supposedly we need eco solutions now. This is it.

In regards to waste, you are wrong. Within 40 years, used waste has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. The US has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, so it will be possible to use that energy and to hugely reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment and disposal.

Most other countries do the same thing and the technology is getting better. Now, what's worse, Nuclear containment we can control with 95% reusability rate, or continuing to pump the air full of CO2 from Coalfire plants?

Many renowned scientists believe Nuclear Power is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Including many from the Eco movement. That is if we want real change, and not just political posturing, wishing for another answer that isn't there.

We have 600 Coal Fire plants pumping emissions into the sky. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. It is safe, also. You can talk about 3 Mile Island, or something else but that isn't representative of how things are NOW. This doesn't even take into account that 3 Mile Island didn't have any leaks, or other issues due to the concrete containment system. That was 30 years ago, and the safety and technology are even better and safer today.

We have over 100 Nuclear power plants today producing 20% of our nations power grid. Now, imagine if we replaced the Coalfire ones that emit 2 billion tons of CO2annually, with more Nuclear? There goes the climate change problem, and we add more power to enable us to get off foreign oil.

Safely, cheaply, and wisely, I might add.

[Tossica]

I'm all for nuclear power. I'd like a nuclear powered car actually. Back to the Future!

[10sun]

I'm all for nuclear power. I'd like a nuclear powered car actually. Back to the Future!

Fill it up every million miles!

But honestly I don't know if it would even be possible to size and convert a nuclear power plant to that size.

-Adam

[Tossica]

If they can fit one in a submarine, it shouldn't be too long before they can drop one in a minivan.

[kaharthemad]

How about out here in CA, what happens if it's near the center of an 8+ earthquake?

-Arlos

We take 90 percent of Hollywood. As I see it. it is a win win situation.

[kaharthemad]

If they can fit one in a submarine, it shouldn't be too long before they can drop one in a minivan.

They can fit one in a sub but the control to produce the SSTG energy are alot and I dont think you want to be sitting on top of something the produces 40,000 Volts of Multiphased energy.

Besides most people are not bright enough to operate a remote control, can you imagine telling him that the reactor temp needs to maintain a critcal temp and that he needs to regulate the rods?

[Evermore]

In regards to waste, you are wrong. Within 40 years, used waste has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. The US has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, so it will be possible to use that energy and to hugely reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment and disposal.

you left out high level waste.