Biofuels are not the answer.

[Alondro]

See?  I told you so!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070926/sc_nm/clinton_goodall_forests_dc

You can't produce enough crops to meet the demands of fuel consumption without decimating the land.  Only a new crop with astronomical biomass yields for a small area will have a chance of meeting demand without ruining arable land.  This crop must also stabilize land and not deplete the soil of nutrients.

Ahem... kudzu once again...

Or the other solution; reduce the surpluss human population.   

Face the facts, there are too many people and recources are being stretched to the limit.  The Earth cannot support much more growth.  And it cannot support a population of even current numbers at the level of US consumption.  Look what's happening in China as they modernize for a perfect example.  Their environment is going to be destroyed in a few decades. 

People can imagine all these happy little miracles of science to fix all the problems, but so far none of those miracles has happened.  It's all grasping at straws that always prove too brittle to hold under the weight of real population demands.

The only real solution is to reduce the demands, and the only way to do that is to reduce the population.  That's the nasty reality no one seems capable of facing, except for China ironically, where the population control program has actually started working. 

MMORPG's may help, as everyone is too caught up in game play to bother with having kids.   

[lucas marcone]

"Biofuel isn't the answer to everything; it depends where it comes from," she said. "All of this means better education on where fuels are coming from are needed."


i've been sauing this for years. in junction with my support of biofuel.

[Turnsky]

See?  I told you so!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070926/sc_nm/clinton_goodall_forests_dc

You can't produce enough crops to meet the demands of fuel consumption without decimating the land.  Only a new crop with astronomical biomass yields for a small area will have a chance of meeting demand without ruining arable land.  This crop must also stabilize land and not deplete the soil of nutrients.

Ahem... kudzu once again...

Or the other solution; reduce the surpluss human population.   

Face the facts, there are too many people and recources are being stretched to the limit.  The Earth cannot support much more growth.  And it cannot support a population of even current numbers at the level of US consumption.  Look what's happening in China as they modernize for a perfect example.  Their environment is going to be destroyed in a few decades. 

People can imagine all these happy little miracles of science to fix all the problems, but so far none of those miracles has happened.  It's all grasping at straws that always prove too brittle to hold under the weight of real population demands.

The only real solution is to reduce the demands, and the only way to do that is to reduce the population.  That's the nasty reality no one seems capable of facing, except for China ironically, where the population control program has actually started working. 

MMORPG's may help, as everyone is too caught up in game play to bother with having kids.   

alcohol on the other hand, can be produced easily and on an industrial scale.

[lucas marcone]

ethenol is alcohol.

[Caswin]

"Okay, everyone... the Earth is good and populated/filled/subjugated, you can stop now..."

Ah, but that's everybody else's problem, I guess.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

ethenol is alcohol.

Nope.

ethanol is an alcohol. So is methanol, propanol, butanol, pentanol, hexanol, etc. Ethanol is simply distinctive in being the only one that is less (immediately) lethal than the others when ingested, particularly in any quantity.

[Turnsky]

ethenol is alcohol.

Nope.

ethanol is an alcohol. So is methanol, propanol, butanol, pentanol, hexanol, etc. Ethanol is simply distinctive in being the only one that is less (immediately) lethal than the others when ingested, particularly in any quantity.

exactly, ethanol is commonly found in all liquors, and can be produced easily via either fermentation or distillation processes.

hydrogen's another option, mass production, containment, and idiot-proofing it's another matter.

it's worth noting that hydrogen's just as flammible as normal petroleum, but safer due to any "spills" dispersing upward into the atmosphere, rather than forming a pool where all havoc can occur.

[Valynth]

Actually, Hydrogen is more prone to explosion/fire when there's a leak due to oxygen in the area.

EDIT:  The fires themselves are also more dangerous since they're hard to see without another substance being introduced to the fire.

[Arcalane]

Biofuels are totally the answer, after all...

[Turnsky]

Actually, Hydrogen is more prone to explosion/fire when there's a leak due to oxygen in the area.

EDIT:  The fires themselves are also more dangerous since they're hard to see without another substance being introduced to the fire.

fuel vapor's just as deadly, otherwise internal combustion wouldn't work. and you'd need quite a lot as hydrogen burns VERY quickly.

[RobbieThe1st]

Hm... Plant wise, how about Algae? As anyone with a fish tank or even a computer water-cooling system knows, Algae grows just about anywhere there is light and heat. Of course, for mass production, you would need some source of food for it.

Light wise isn't a problem; just use vats that are open to the top/have a transparent cover,.
Heat wise, well, how about nuclear reactor waste? Everyone says its such a problem to get rid of, and is radioactive for a *very* long time, how about having a couple underground tanks with reactor waste, you have some water cycling through it which goes through a heat exchanger to transfer the heat into the vats.
Food wise, if we are talking about using it only for fuel, what about human waste? Cities have *lots* to get rid of, and you wouldn't need much, plus, by the time the algae-oil got to your tank, it would be pretty much harmless, at least disease wise.

Once you implement this on a *large* scale, it would definitely produce lots of oil, and the cost would be virtually nothing. It would take care of some human waste, use the power of spent nuclear power plant fuels, and produce lots of oil!

You could also use something like this for human food(soylent green style!), but you would need a cleaner food source, but that wouldn't be all that hard.

-RobbieThe1st's cynical views

[superluser]

What I want to know about hydrogen (and I've never heard this addressed) is whether they've solved the issue of hydrogen containment.  Hydrogen tends to leak right through metal.

[Zorro]

COAL is a BIOFUEL!

It is plants that have been compressed and converted for a few million years.

The United States has enough coal to supply energy for at least 700 years and that is all the really great coal, there is lots more less than top quality coal.

Besides...MEXICO NEEDS TORTILLAS!  Stop burning it for fuel you Yanqui Puercos!

[lucas marcone]

robbie has a point. though my question is wether or not alge forments?


superluser, i think they already have that figured out otherwise they wouldn't be showing them off and driveing them and such. i think they either use a glass or latex membrane inorder to contain it. better yet to preven a leak we all know glass can hold it under regular fuctioning conditions but if you get in a wreck coat the inside with latex so that you have time to escape before the fire starts.


that is rather odd though don't you need something to ignite the hydrogen? i don't think it just burns on contact with O2.

let me see....

2H2+O2 > 2H2O

would hydrogen break it's bonds that redily? and would oxygen? i dunno im just sayin is all. im tired and i really should be sleepin.

[Alondro]

Thatis indeed the biggest problem with hydrogen.  It takes alot of energy to produce it from any material.  It's the big thing all the advocates of it never talk about, because there is no workable solution at this point.  You either have to hydrolyze water or crack hydrocarbons, and both methods require energy.  Plus cracking hydrocarbons produces just as much CO2 as simply burning the hydrocarbons in the first place.

Once more, the simplest answer is getting rid of humans.  And to make that environmentally sound, they should be fed to lions, tigers and polar bears.   

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Pfft. Feed the humans to the mould. Much more effective, and there's more of it to feed.

[lucas marcone]

well if we were useing solar power, something I dearly wish to see in the future, then makeing hydrogen wouldn't be that much of a set back co2 wise.

[Alondro]

Solar panels have drawbacks.  They cost alot to produce and the best ones only have a useful life of about 20 years.  Then you have to dispose of them, which is very difficult as they're basically silicon sheets doped with heavy metals.

We need a new and better type of solar power technology altogether.

Wind farms could take care of some of the electricity requirements, but there are few locations that are suited, and then there's always the crowds of NIMBYs who protest everything. 

NIMBYs = Not In My Back Yard people

[xHaZxMaTx]

And to make that environmentally sound, they should be fed to lions, tigers and polar bears.   

Oh my.

[Arcalane]

We needs more geothermal and hydroelectric power.

I have to agree though, this planet is starting to get a wee bit overcrowded. As much as it sounds a horrible thing, the people have got to go somewhere else. Be it the moon, Mars, or... well, dead.

Or maybe Soylent Green.

[Valynth]

If the earth was over crowding we'd be in the middle of a famine.  China is the way it is because they employ practices that are highly ineffectual in terms of farming.

[Alondro]

Well, there are 2 billion people globally who don't have enough food, but that's mainly due to waste and corrupt local governments/warlords who steal everything they're given in foreign aid. 

Fresh water and energy are the two big concerns.  If everyone on earth was raised to the American or European standards of living, the fresh water supply would be depleted in a few years.  Just look at Lake Chad as it is, and the Aral Sea.  Farmland in the US is even suffering as aquifers are being emptied faster than they can refill.

We're reaching the limit of what the planet can support in human population, unless we wish to exterminate all other life to make room for ourselves, which is inevitably what will happen.  History proves conclusively that when its humans vs other critters, the other critters lose.

And then what?  At maximum, with all other large mammals exterminated and all arable farmland in use, the Earth might manage 12 billion humans (assuming we can stretch fresh water that much or find other sources, like using magic to bring icebergs inland.     )  What will happen then if humanity hasn't figured out that it's gotten too big? 

The problem should be dealt with now BEFORE it's too late, not after as is usually the case with the human race (which is inferior to my supreme geniusness).   

[Valynth]

The problem isn't water, it's -fresh- water.  What we need to focus on is removing impurities from salt water, or yanking some ice from the poles.  Both of which are -very- doable with our current technology.  It just hasn't gotten to the point where just drilling for ground water is more expensive than grabbing pole ice/distilling sea water.

[Alondro]

And who is going to pay for this expensive water?  The costs involved in providing fresh water to the entire population once it reaches that point would reach into the trillions every year.  And how much energy is all that water distillation and/or polar ice shipping going to take?  Thus, once more we're hitting on other limited resources. 

And not to mention this entire proposal rests on technology that doesn't exist yet.  It's called counting ones chickens before they're hatched.

DEAL.... WITH... POPULATION... NOW... before it gets too late.  It's very simple.  People should stop having 12 children, especially if they live in a desert.  That's just absurdly stupid.

Do you even realize how fast resources like fish and forests are vanishing?  There is a very real possibility that before I am old, forests will have reached critical losses in almost every continent except Europe and North America, where the population density is still relatively low.  And all but the fastest reproducing, easiest farmed, and most inedible fish will be extinct.  Fisheries have had very low-yield catches in the past decade, which there had been warnings of since the early 80's.   

But as usual, no one listened to the marine biologists who were actually studying the effect of chronic overfishing.  They were too concerned about local fishing economies in the short term.  Well what the hell do they expect to catch when they've fished every damn fish?  I recall a Serendipity book about this.

Ah yes, "Maui-Maui", which told how the foolish creatures the Amomonies whose wasteful ways nearly used up all the fish in their seas.  But I was wrong about the year.  That book was published in 1979.  The printing I have is the 7th, from 1983.

What do you think is really going to happen if we add even another 2 billion people?  Quit with the fanciful dreams and start dealing with the reality that humans are as a whole are selfish and stupid and will act to serve nothing but themselves.  That's what you plan for, not dreamy peachy-keen visions of the future where everyone is happily working together to save the planet.  I know humanity too well.  It ain't happening.

Just look at how whaling keeps coming back, even though there is absolutely no need for it whatsoever.  Just look how the rich in China and other Asian countries still fuel the demand for tiger, rhino and other endangered animal parts, not even because they believe the ridiculous claims, but merely as a status symbol.

No, I'll not put my faith in humanity.  And I'l not put the stakes of the future upon something that doesn't exist.  If these wonder technologies can be made, then make them.  Once you have them in hand, then we'll talk.  Until then, humanity, stop breeding like rats.

[RobbieThe1st]

Wind farms could take care of some of the electricity requirements, but there are few locations that are suited, and then there's always the crowds of NIMBYs who protest everything. 
NIMBYs = Not In My Back Yard people

Once more, the simplest answer is getting rid of humans.  And to make that environmentally sound, they should be fed to lions, tigers and polar bears.   

An even better idea: Set up wind farms, and feed the NIMBY people to the lions, tigers and polar bears. That would be doubly environmentally friendly!

Or even just build wind farms all you want and call anyone who complains a terrorist(Actually, you can call them eco-terrorists. Just like the A.L.F.). That seems very practical.

-RobbieThe1st

[superluser]

We need a new and better type of solar power technology altogether.

``We need a new and better type of solar power technology!'' 

Anyways, it's not true.  PV solar has been crap since people started thinking about it, and I don't think we're ever going to make it work.  Solar thermal works, but it takes up a lot of land.  Wind is the way to go, IMHO.  Geothermal, hydroelectric, and a variety of other green energy sources are far more promising than solar PV.

Fresh water and fish are actually really serious problems, but I'm not willing to believe Malthus.

[Valynth]

Fresh water really isn't that much of a problem.  If Israel can separate the salts and minerals in the dead sea from each other, then we sure as hell can separate minerals from water.

Also, there are other sources of food other than fish, if the fish go, hey, everyone will just have to eat something else.

Another point, the world's most productive farmland is in the U.S.  Heck, we produce enough food now to feed not only ourselves, but the Chinese as well if their government would let us.

Finally, of the species that have wandered the earth, 99.9% of them went extinct on their own.  So you'll forgive me if I say leave the animals, save the humans.

Also, the whole "We need to control the population" fear mongering crap has been around longer than I have, yet we still have positive birth rates, the only lands that are starving have governments that want them to, and much of North America is still forests.

[Turnsky]

Solar panels have drawbacks.  They cost alot to produce and the best ones only have a useful life of about 20 years.  Then you have to dispose of them, which is very difficult as they're basically silicon sheets doped with heavy metals.

We need a new and better type of solar power technology altogether.

Wind farms could take care of some of the electricity requirements, but there are few locations that are suited, and then there's always the crowds of NIMBYs who protest everything. 

NIMBYs = Not In My Back Yard people

in the netherlands they've installed a massive wind farm on water, which saves precious land being taken up by the mammoth wind turbines.

Solar panels need to be kept clean as well, any dust that collects on them reduces their efficiency, greenies go on about how solar energy is the answer, but really, in any practical sense, it isn't.
putting some sort of solar energy collection system to help heat/cool large buildings is a reasonable way to save on energy costs, but it's a band-aid measure at best.
they're  still toying with Fusion reactors at oxford right now.
Hydrogen, they're still looking for an effective means of mass production that doesn't come from byproducts of the petrochemical industry.

another thing about solar panels, is that they're only really good on sunny days.
Electric cars, well, they're wonderous and all, but have a limited effective range, and heavier than normal internal combustion engine types.
Biodiesel, or recycled deep frier oil, is wonderous and all, but really once the market starts, people will charge through the nose for it anyway.

Nuclear power is the only "atmospheric friendly" thing i can think of, potential chernobyls notwithstanding. Waste is a big issue, though.

[Jack McSlay]

Electric cars, well, they're wonderous and all, but have a limited effective range, and heavier than normal internal combustion engine types.
(...)
Nuclear power is the only "atmospheric friendly" thing i can think of, potential chernobyls notwithstanding. Waste is a big issue, though.

they've already calculated the average daily run on 30-50km for a car, and they already achieved 40% that mark with batteries alone.

and for nuclear power, ona must find out how to make one that is small and light enough to put in a car.

to me, the future lies on electric power AND smaller vehicles. there's no need for people to walk around every day on cars with room for 5 people, when most of the time only one person is using it

[Reese Tora]

Fresh water really isn't that much of a problem.  If Israel can separate the salts and minerals in the dead sea from each other, then we sure as hell can separate minerals from water.

I don't think their methodology will work for us, since it involves putting the water/mineral solution in large shallow pools with a  high surface area to volume ratio, and letting the water evaporate.

For the algae power source... I was watching a special on power sources on Discovery a while ago, and there's a power plant in... Texas? that is experimenting on growing algae as a source of oil.  That's right, oil.  Apparently, the algae they are growing can be processed into a sort of crude oil, and are grown in vertical plastic cylinders that only require aeration and a fresh water feed(and probably enough other food to grow).