Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
I submit this with no particular bias one way or the other. There have been statements that biofuels are carbon neutral and this article strongly disagrees with that point of view.
yes, I agree that it's author appears biased but the claim that biofuel has a much larger carbon footprint is worth following up on. I believe there is some truth to that but a 33X larger footprint does seem wrong. Anyone know the reality?
What a load of crap. Farms have been closing down for years because they can't sell crops. Biofuels would turn things around in many ways. Old and damaged food crops could be used for fuel instead of landfill. Fuel crops don't need people friendly fertilizer or insecticides, use sewage sludge and let the bugs have fun. There are a lot of rapid growth plants, that aren't of food interest, but would make great fuel. Genetically altered plants could be used for fuel (never understood why its such a scare as food). I think it would create a lot of jobs, strengthen local economies. Farming for fuel wouldn't involve an special care of the crops, as it wouldn't matter what the product looked like, how ripe (or over ripe). No special harvesters (might help with the border issues, sorry mexico). Wouldn't have to seperate anything, different type plants could grow together in the same fields. Not much worr about pest, majority of the damage is cosmetic. Bacteria would be killed when the fuel is rendered. Farming without the hassles. Really don't see how this will effect the world food supply.
Carbon based fuels will polute just the same, don't think enviroment friendly applies here, except more plants, cleaner air...
I thought it was a reasonable article and agree with phil that it's worth following up on. The reason that we're in, and will be in for quite a while, an environmental predicament is that we too often don't consider our impact. Too many times we hear about some "simple" solution that will save the world; agro-fuels is no different. There is no one simple answer to our mess and we need to get out of the "hey...let's do this thing over here" attitude.
And Big Business behind any solution should always be a concern.
While there are troubling questions about the usefulness of the biofuel cycle in helping the planet or even getting any net gain in usable fuel at all, keep in mind there are more than a few paid pundits quietly being very well-funded by oil companies or other such big corporate entities. It is corporate propaganda masquerading as informed, individual thought.
Well, that being said the article is by Eric Holt-Giménez, who comes with some credentials to suggest he's on the level: **broken link removed** Traveling Professor International Honors Program (IHP), Boston University
B.A. The Evergreen State College
M.S. University of California, Davis Ph.D. University of California, Santa Cruz
Transport is always going to need some portable fuel supply, but power grneration gets to stay in one place. There are several nuclear reactor designs around that are much less dangerous that the crappy old 1950's era boiling water designs still in operation here. Building new reactors stops zillions of tons of pollution, plus lets us use up some of the thousands of weapons just gathering dust.
Yes, but the problem with nuclear power is that it generates extremely hazardous waste that lasts for thousands of years. Think about it...the power used to run your fridge or make your clothing produces waste that's still highly toxic long after your great great great...great grandchildren are dead.
Doesn't a nuclear reactor still just boil water to drive a steam turbine? The fuel rod is consider 'spent', when the can no longer maintain a consistant reaction temperature. Not sure if they replace a single rod, the entire core at once, or sort through individual fuel pellets... But seem if the fuel is still dangerously radioactive, then perhaps it's not being completely used, or used to the best advantage. I would hope that after all these years of relatively safe power generation, they have learn enough about the material to come up with something less wasteful.
One thing people like to point out is that it takes fuel to grow the crop, process the plants, and then distribute the product.
While all this is true there is bound to be a net gain in the fuel supply.
The carbon released by the fuel was obtained as carbon dioxide when the plants were growing. Show be close to a zero sum unless ones uses fossil fuel to process the plants.
And as pointed out Harvy442 it puts money back into the local economy that would otherwise go elsewhere.
nuclear has it drawbacks but I've read about studies that have consistently said that even with some radioactive releases, the death rate from nuclear power is lower than the death rate from coal fire plants for equal amounts of power generated. These were older studies so they didn't take into account the greenhouse gas issues nor the impact of chernobyl-like events. I'd bet that an unbiased study would still conclude that nukes are a better bet.
Or we could all just go back to being peasant-farmers.
If even one nuclear plant blew up, the death and destruction would be far greater than all coal fire plants, past and future. Chernobyl was bad, mostly because the russians waited so long to admit they had a problem. Even then, they got off easy, another week or so...
Russian reactors were a rushed design, unlike american designs, where if a meltdown were to occur, the incredably massive concrete barrier would block all to most radiation released (concrete housings were around 10ft thick!). Russian Reactors had a basic enclosure, so if a melt down were to occur, the explosion and radiation would not have much of anything blocking its path. I believe in Neuclear power, even though of its downsides. But truely, it is usually operator error in the meltodowns! (aka reactor design: russians)
rguement that "there must be a beter way" fails to satisfy. The french and canadians have pushed reactor technology way beyond RBMK's and GE water boilers. The human cost of extracting the radioactives of already paid. The environmental damage being done mining coal is truly horrendous. And dealing with hundreds of tons of crud rather than billions of tons seems to be more manageable.
This is not aimed at anybody in particular - can someone explain why there is such a mind-numbing fear of reactor waste? The mess at Hanford came about from corner-cutting during a period when the nuclear war with Russia was felt to be a certainty. That won't happen again. More people have and will die from coal mining and pollution than have died from all the reactor accidents.
The simple fact is that people have been trained to fear anything nuclear. Nuclear means death, sickness, cancer. Activists spread the fear that radioactive materials are completely unmanageable.
It truly got irrational - there is an effect called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. Using very strong magnets, you can align the nuclei of atoms in soft tissue and then using their response, you can image the soft tissue. Nobody wanted anything to do with that until they dropped Nuclear from the name and called it Magnetic Resonance Imaging - MRI.
This bio fuel thread has got way out of context, biofuel like any other type of fuel will never be carbon neutral. As most of you guys know I live totally off the grid yet enjoy all the comforts of suburian(YUK) life. Shortly I'll be getting a D4 dozer for free so yes I will be making my own blend of fuel to run it as diesel is too expensive. In my sticky are some links to guys that make their own bio fuel and it isnt hard on a small scale but when is the mass's going to realise all nukes will do will kill the ground where you live accident or otherwise. Just think of the waste water that comes from a nuke plant, although they tell you its only the cooling water it's still radio active to a small extent. Yet over time people wonder why when living near a river where a a nuke plant is everyone has some diease or some ailment.
My thoughts I'm totally off the grid and loving it
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
