Biofuel

[Locke]

One of the largest environmental paradigms upon which corporations and politicians have seized is the biofuel movement; however, this plan is not sustainable in the long term. The demand for corn-based ethanol decreases the supply available for subsistence; thus, food prices rise. It seems to be the dissemination of a pseudo-environmental stance by said politicians and corporations. What do you believe?

[Cattraknoff]

When it comes to biofuel, my opinion can be summed up in one phrase: lol.

The blatant idiocy of it is staggering, which means it will be widely endorsed by a motley collection of fools better known as voters.

[Mitch]

Biofuel is probably one of the dumbest things ever!
The only problem solved with this is that we're using less oil/gasoline from the ground. But this creates so many more problems!
Less food for what food is meant for... EATING.
The point of alternative energy sources is for it to be carbon/emission free. Biofuel isn't an alternative energy source, it's just another money maker.
This is really the only alternative energy source that I really don't like. The technology and money is out there to actually do something, but no one wants to spend the money.

[Cattraknoff]

Biofuel is probably one of the dumbest things ever!
The only problem solved with this is that we're using less oil/gasoline from the ground. But this creates so many more problems!
Less food for what food is meant for... EATING.
The point of alternative energy sources is for it to be carbon/emission free. Biofuel isn't an alternative energy source, it's just another money maker.
This is really the only alternative energy source that I really don't like. The technology and money is out there to actually do something, but no one wants to spend the money.

It takes almost as much oil and other fossil fuels to make corn-based ethanol as what you get out of it. Add to that the fact that it's also less efficient, and you're lacking any reason, be it environmental (CO2 emission nuts) or sustainability, to use it.

If governments cared at all about viable alternatives they would've listened to Nikolai Tesla rather than shutting him down and declaring his research a secret.

[Locke]

If governments cared at all about viable alternatives they would've listened to Nikolai Tesla rather than shutting him down and declaring his research a secret.
Amen. We'll never now know whether or not the world can become a giant electrical coil. Although, that could entrain other consequences.

[Mitch]

Amen. We'll never now know whether or not the world can become a giant electrical coil. Although, that could entrain other consequences.
The earth's a huge magnet, sort of, right? So why not wrap some huge wires around it and get some Mexicans to run or push on it to generate power, that'll work. :p

[Locke]

The earth's a huge magnet, sort of, right? So why not wrap some huge wires around it and get some Mexicans to run or push on it to generate power, that'll work. :p

That was, in essence, his idea, yet if probably bore some notable refinements. Much of his work involved Alternating Currents, and therefore he thought to stop human conflict and hate through unlimited, free energy, the main theory of which was making the world a giant AC producer.

[Cattraknoff]

That was, in essence, his idea, yet if probably bore some notable refinements. Much of his work involved Alternating Currents, and therefore he thought to stop human conflict and hate through unlimited, free energy, the main theory of which was making the world a giant AC producer.

And given the fact that his research was shut down & declared secret, I'd say there was at least some merit to it.

[Locke]

And given the fact that his research was shut down & declared secret, I'd say there was at least some merit to it.

Well, they were undoubtedly afraid, but it seems unlikely that such a thing could be realized.

[Cattraknoff]

Well, they were undoubtedly afraid, but it seems unlikely that such a thing could be realized.

The man was a genius, and he accomplished more than almost any other scientist/inventor in history.

Perhaps it wouldn't have been, but how many other similar projects (cheap/free energy) have been shut down as well, I wonder? The most worrying thing is that large corporations are allowed (not to mention they aren't even questioned) to shut down any project which would benefit humanity, and therefore damage their profits. Unchecked capitalism certainly has its drawbacks. I'd almost favor communism at this point. Almost.

[Locke]

The man was a genius, and he accomplished more than almost any other scientist/inventor in history.

Perhaps it wouldn't have been, but how many other similar projects (cheap/free energy) have been shut down as well, I wonder? The most worrying thing is that large corporations are allowed (not to mention they aren't even questioned) to shut down any project which would benefit humanity, and therefore damage their profits. Unchecked capitalism certainly has its drawbacks. I'd almost favor communism at this point. Almost.

I'd say few. Insofar as we've been informed, energy is a rare commodity in this universe.

[oboehart]

Biofuels are a gift. What we need to understand, however, is that most things are better in moderation. What humans have done with biofuels, is taken an excellent idea and brutally destroyed it. (Not the first time...You'd think our politicians would start to learn...)
See, if farmers got subsidies for burning their plant WASTE, then that would make sense. However, they're getting paid for burning FOOD. Now, I see a problem with that. I'm all for the development of alternative energy sources. It's inevitable, that eventually we are going to run out of fossil fuels. And when you look at geothermal, solar, wind, hydro and tidal, not only are they specific to extreme environmental conditions in order to do any efficient good, but there are also extreme disadvantages with every single one of them. If you make a huge dam, there's problems. If birds are flying into wind turbines, you have yet another issue. Solar is just rediculously inefficient, and the energy is hard to store. So, compared to those, biofuels seem like a great solution.
Hydro plants, solar plants, wind turbines, and burning waste: Now we're getting somewhere. We can't just put all of our subsidies into ONE ENERGY SOURCE!!! THERE WILL ALWAYS BE RAMIFICATIONS!!!
And please...don't burn my food.

[Mitch]

Well, here's the thing, like you said, they're doing all the Biofuel stuff wrong. It's supposed to be plant WASTE that should be converted.
However, contrary to what you think, Solar power is actually quite efficient if done properly.
Scientists are working on "Synthetic Photosynthesis", where water would run through some sort of fabric (some sort of Cellular Membrane replica) and the water would then be converted into Hydrogen and Oxygen, which then can be used in Hydrogen Cells, etc.

The governments just need to subsidize and support the RIGHT alternative energy sources, and biofuel is definitely not the best.

PS. Glad to see you again Oboehart :)

[Cattraknoff]

Biofuel barely yields any extra energy when you use the entire plant. Harvesting just the waste would just cut back on soil nutrients.

[Locke]

Biofuels are a gift. What we need to understand, however, is that most things are better in moderation. What humans have done with biofuels, is taken an excellent idea and brutally destroyed it. (Not the first time...You'd think our politicians would start to learn...)
See, if farmers got subsidies for burning their plant WASTE, then that would make sense. However, they're getting paid for burning FOOD. Now, I see a problem with that. I'm all for the development of alternative energy sources. It's inevitable, that eventually we are going to run out of fossil fuels. And when you look at geothermal, solar, wind, hydro and tidal, not only are they specific to extreme environmental conditions in order to do any efficient good, but there are also extreme disadvantages with every single one of them. If you make a huge dam, there's problems. If birds are flying into wind turbines, you have yet another issue. Solar is just rediculously inefficient, and the energy is hard to store. So, compared to those, biofuels seem like a great solution.
Hydro plants, solar plants, wind turbines, and burning waste: Now we're getting somewhere. We can't just put all of our subsidies into ONE ENERGY SOURCE!!! THERE WILL ALWAYS BE RAMIFICATIONS!!!
And please...don't burn my food.

Even extracting the necessary chemicals from the waste would use up as much, if not more energy than traditional fuels. It is not, yet, a viable alternative to fossil fuels. As well, you seem to be comparing biofuel with energy sources; not sources of fuel. They're not quite burning food; they're simply using it to extract hydrocarbonic compounds to be used in car fuel. In that vein, however, I myself am a proponent of nuclear energy; most of the opposition voiced to such a thing is superstitious and ignorant.

[oboehart]

I'm all for nuclear energy too. Granted, I was referring to energy sources rather than fuel, but we don't need fuel if we have an alternative energy source...especially if we actually use electric transportation research to its full potential.
And you stated "they're not quite burning food." They may not be BURNING it, but the issue is that we have a global food shortage, and food isn't being used for human or animal consumption. Farmers are getting subsidized to use their crops for fuel, and since they get paid more if they contribute all of it, they're doing just that.
As for solar, there is a solar plant in California, called Solar 2. It is incredibly efficient, like you said Mitch. However, California has a lot of sun. It's basically a desert. Solar definitely isn't a global solution, whereas plant waste can be found virtually all over the world. (Places without plant waste, ie. deserts, have solar to work with.)
Has anyone here heard of hydrogen fuel? I read about how great it was about two years ago, and haven't heard much since. (Therefore leading me to believe it isn't all it was made out to be.)

[Cattraknoff]

I'm all for nuclear energy too. Granted, I was referring to energy sources rather than fuel, but we don't need fuel if we have an alternative energy source...especially if we actually use electric transportation research to its full potential.
And you stated "they're not quite burning food." They may not be BURNING it, but the issue is that we have a global food shortage, and food isn't being used for human or animal consumption. Farmers are getting subsidized to use their crops for fuel, and since they get paid more if they contribute all of it, they're doing just that.
As for solar, there is a solar plant in California, called Solar 2. It is incredibly efficient, like you said Mitch. However, California has a lot of sun. It's basically a desert. Solar definitely isn't a global solution, whereas plant waste can be found virtually all over the world. (Places without plant waste, ie. deserts, have solar to work with.)
Has anyone here heard of hydrogen fuel? I read about how great it was about two years ago, and haven't heard much since. (Therefore leading me to believe it isn't all it was made out to be.)

Hydrogen fuel requires more energy to split water into its basic components (Hydrogen and Oxygen) than it yield when you recombine them. It would work if you had a free energy source creating it (massive solar plant or something), because then it could be stored and used in place of gasoline, with literally no environmental impact from its use (only product is water again).

[Mitch]

I'm all for nuclear energy too. Granted, I was referring to energy sources rather than fuel, but we don't need fuel if we have an alternative energy source...especially if we actually use electric transportation research to its full potential.
And you stated "they're not quite burning food." They may not be BURNING it, but the issue is that we have a global food shortage, and food isn't being used for human or animal consumption. Farmers are getting subsidized to use their crops for fuel, and since they get paid more if they contribute all of it, they're doing just that.
As for solar, there is a solar plant in California, called Solar 2. It is incredibly efficient, like you said Mitch. However, California has a lot of sun. It's basically a desert. Solar definitely isn't a global solution, whereas plant waste can be found virtually all over the world. (Places without plant waste, ie. deserts, have solar to work with.)
Has anyone here heard of hydrogen fuel? I read about how great it was about two years ago, and haven't heard much since. (Therefore leading me to believe it isn't all it was made out to be.)
I don't think pure solar is the right way, but rather a combination. In Alberta, wind power seems to work quite well, in Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes, water turbines work well. It depends on a location's climate.
However solar power (either pure solar energy or like the way I stated before), would probably be the best. If everyone put solar panels on their roofs, they could be almost completely self-sufficient throughout the summer years.
However, the technology just needs some touch-ups, there are ways to make things even more efficient.

[Locke]

I don't think pure solar is the right way, but rather a combination. In Alberta, wind power seems to work quite well, in Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes, water turbines work well. It depends on a location's climate.
However solar power (either pure solar energy or like the way I stated before), would probably be the best. If everyone put solar panels on their roofs, they could be almost completely self-sufficient throughout the summer years.
However, the technology just needs some touch-ups, there are ways to make things even more efficient.

There are certain technologies not currently being beneficiaries of such advances that are possible, as they do not represent a profit. Solar, in my opinion, is not a viable energy source for a large-scale grid. It is far too inefficient. Domestic solar panels work well, however.

[octoparrot]

WE DONT NEED BIO-FEUL!! biofuel reduces food for poor countories. we need things like hybrid cars.

[Cattraknoff]

WE DONT NEED BIO-FEUL!! biofuel reduces food for poor countories. we need things like hybrid cars.

Our monopoly on food production and the fact that we go out of our way to make it more expensive for them contributes a bit more to that problem.