First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Biofuels: Harmful or Helpful?
5211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / You'll never guess!
Offline
Posted 7/31/08

leviathan343 wrote:


SephirothXIII wrote:

Yeah, I really don't like the idea of biofuel. Hell, the price of crops is rising because of the damn studies and it's not helping out those who already sacrifice all they have to scrap together meager portions of food for their kids. We really need to turn towards different, less consuming sources of energy. The whole concept of biofuel will never work, not matter what. Solar power, wind power, those are going in the right direction at least. Anything's better than gasoline, I guess, though.


Nuclear is the most logical and beneficial at this point, but we as a country are not very enthusiastic about this concept.


Uh, I'll admit, I don't know too much about nuclear generators, but if they work and produce less waste, then what's wrong with them? Americans have always been the most paranoid and sometimes it just gets in the way of progress. If we don't put ourselves at risk once in awhile, all that we gain won't mean a damn thing. But the fact is this: if we don't stop this global warming crap, we're all gonna... regret it. Why not risk something monumentally less than the entire freaking human race?
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/31/08

SephirothXIII wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


SephirothXIII wrote:

Yeah, I really don't like the idea of biofuel. Hell, the price of crops is rising because of the damn studies and it's not helping out those who already sacrifice all they have to scrap together meager portions of food for their kids. We really need to turn towards different, less consuming sources of energy. The whole concept of biofuel will never work, not matter what. Solar power, wind power, those are going in the right direction at least. Anything's better than gasoline, I guess, though.


Nuclear is the most logical and beneficial at this point, but we as a country are not very enthusiastic about this concept.


Uh, I'll admit, I don't know too much about nuclear generators, but if they work and produce less waste, then what's wrong with them? Americans have always been the most paranoid and sometimes it just gets in the way of progress. If we don't put ourselves at risk once in awhile, all that we gain won't mean a damn thing. But the fact is this: if we don't stop this global warming crap, we're all gonna... regret it. Why not risk something monumentally less than the entire freaking human race?


It's pretty much the paranoia you're talking about. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl...the idea of nuclear power plants conjures up fears of mass radiation poisoning and death. Yet France is deriving the majority of its energy from nuclear power, and they'll doing quite well. There are even methods that drastically cut down on nuclear waste; the funny thing is, the government has refused to fund such technology.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/31/08

zendude wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


SephirothXIII wrote:

Yeah, I really don't like the idea of biofuel. Hell, the price of crops is rising because of the damn studies and it's not helping out those who already sacrifice all they have to scrap together meager portions of food for their kids. We really need to turn towards different, less consuming sources of energy. The whole concept of biofuel will never work, not matter what. Solar power, wind power, those are going in the right direction at least. Anything's better than gasoline, I guess, though.


Nuclear is the most logical and beneficial at this point, but we as a country are not very enthusiastic about this concept.


Levi, I somewhat have to disagree with nuclear energy with the U.S; and not because of the radiation or paranoia with nuclear accident.

Here are better solutions:
- Decentralized Energy Grid
- Conservation
- Better Energy education in the U.S.(A lot of Americans apparently don't know where their electricity come from)
- Seaweed/Genetically Engineered base biofuel
- Better R&D department

Source: Energy and American Society Thirteen Myths
by Benjamin K. Sovacool (Editor), Marilyn A. Brown (Editor) and other Ph.D and experts on the environment


Do you disagree because the other ways you mentioned would be easier to implement? Or because their effects will be more productive/longer-lasting?

If I read the book, I would understand the points more. Sorry.
Posted 8/1/08

leviathan343 wrote:


I-Killerbee-I wrote:

Well, I must say that it is a joke to make fuel for cars out of food, food that we human beings need, food which is necessary for us to live, we don't really need cars to survive, but food yes.
I am really shocked at the retarded ideas the scientists are coming up these days. Obviously they never think enough far into the future to see that their project/idea is a failure. That's like playing with food around, and that just to enhance our cars. -_- Instead of investing more money into researches of how to make faster and better cars that are enhanced by electricity, they prefer to stick to the retarded idea of making a biofuel which 'should' be less polluting. My ass. Everything that is burnt is polluting the air. Bio or not.
The world of science should set some new priorities instead of only caring about their personal profit they should more care about the future that is awaiting their children. I mean, gawd, there are people starving to death in certain areas of this world, so why the heck is someone thinking that making fuel of food is a good idea? It's not really reducing the pollution, nor is it helping the world to get rid of hungry people.
Obviously this world cares more about how to enhance their cars for cheaper money instead of caring about the real issues that are concerning us. Playing with lives in such an ignorant way, shame on them. Biofuel was meant to fail. And all the other fuels such as hydrogen, etc. fail too.

Floetry~


Okay? You're wrong on many points?


No?
Posted 8/1/08 , edited 8/1/08
Used for production of bioethanol, biodiesel: Sugar bet, wheat, maize, rapeseed, palm oil, etc.
Do you actually realise how much land(agricultural) is going to waste due to that? The survival of humankind heavily depends on this land. This would mean that the access to this land for food purposes would be denied. They come to the third world countries and ask for land for biofuel production, which is on one hand a good idea as it creates more job opportunities and might improve the economy of the 3. world countries through the sale of the fuel. But on the other hand, what happens to the food supply? In many countries they are facing food problems, the prices for food have immensely gone upwards these past few years, while the only thing the world cares about is to cultivate more biofuel crops rather than selling food to the needy countries.
Biofuel production did already drive the price of maize up in 2006 and 2007. It was a predictable thing, and should have been enough of a warning to prevent the current food crisis.
Biofuel crops are diverting land, water and other resources away from food production. The environmental and social damage will outweigh the benefits; proof: current food crisis. Other than that such crops require high fossil energy inputs: Conventional feritlisers, pesticids, the machinery used to grow, transport and process the crop is also often powered by fossil fuel, the eradication of forests to grow biofuel crops------> results in the loss of natural 'carbon sinks'. Basically the emissions caused by the manufacturing of the fuels is going to vastly outweigh any CO2 saved once put in a car's tank. I've red in this article that researchers found out that growing biofuel crops on converted rainforest, grasslands, etc. created up to 420 times more CO2 than it saved. Link: http://www.physorg.com/news121614826.htmlAnother negative impact: sustainable energy crops 'will' replace primary forests, as most of the cultivators 'only' care about the profit of it. This would lead to large releases of carbon from the soil, etc. The production of biofuel is devastating huge areas of the world's environment. It causes a loss of vital habitat worldwide.
Another horrific thing is the absence of any standards requiring producers to prove their biofuel is not the product of highly damaging agricultural practices responsible for destroying rain forests, peatlands, and savannahs or grasslands. Norman Baker:'' Thanks to flaws in the Government's system, companies selling these fuels will even be allowed to get away with saying they don't know whether they've been sourced sustainably or not.''. Sadly biofuel production can already be blamed for having made a species extinct(South America: Bird; the Alagoas Curassow). Another sad thing is that your good intentions with investing money into biofuel will only help this destruction to go on.

To put it simple: Biofuel fails.

Hydrogen: Someone might believe its the energy of the future, but the production of it is similar to the one of electricity, we need electricity to produce it, and the most effective way of how to produce a lot of electricity at once to accurately supply the needs for the hydrogen production would be to produce electricity by burning gas, oil, coal or uranium.
Gas= bad
Oil= bad
Coal= bad
Uranium= would make grow the possibility of having another Chernobyl disaster to reoccur. (referring to the recent serious problems in France with their Nuclear power plant near Marseilles, Czech Republic, i.e. Temelin, etc) = stupid idea

To put it simple: Hydrogen fails.

Floetry~
Posted 8/1/08

zendude wrote:


I-Killerbee-I wrote:




Nice counter and really informative.

Anyways, what or who is "Floetry."


Me.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 8/1/08 , edited 8/1/08

I-Killerbee-I wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


I-Killerbee-I wrote:

Well, I must say that it is a joke to make fuel for cars out of food, food that we human beings need, food which is necessary for us to live, we don't really need cars to survive, but food yes.
I am really shocked at the retarded ideas the scientists are coming up these days. Obviously they never think enough far into the future to see that their project/idea is a failure. That's like playing with food around, and that just to enhance our cars. -_- Instead of investing more money into researches of how to make faster and better cars that are enhanced by electricity, they prefer to stick to the retarded idea of making a biofuel which 'should' be less polluting. My ass. Everything that is burnt is polluting the air. Bio or not.
The world of science should set some new priorities instead of only caring about their personal profit they should more care about the future that is awaiting their children. I mean, gawd, there are people starving to death in certain areas of this world, so why the heck is someone thinking that making fuel of food is a good idea? It's not really reducing the pollution, nor is it helping the world to get rid of hungry people.
Obviously this world cares more about how to enhance their cars for cheaper money instead of caring about the real issues that are concerning us. Playing with lives in such an ignorant way, shame on them. Biofuel was meant to fail. And all the other fuels such as hydrogen, etc. fail too.

Floetry~


Okay? You're wrong on many points?


No?


World hunger can be attributed more to the unequal distribution of food than to the amount of food being produced. Not to mention, Americans as a whole eat far too much compared to everyone else in the world.
Electric cars are a long-term solution, not to mention the logistics involved in gearing national personal transportation to it would be extremely unwieldy. We should look for short-term solutions to fill the time gaps in-between gas and electric.
"Biofuel was meant to fail"? What does that even mean?
Who exactly is going to pay for scientific research for "the betterment of mankind"? Why do you think they have so much money to use for research in the first place? Charity?

I agree with the informative post after it. I don't think that biofuel is necessarily a terrible idea in the first place. I simply hate the attention surrounding it as a wonderful solution (for the reasons you pointed out). I still don't believe that your reasons against nuclear power are strong enough.
5211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / You'll never guess!
Offline
Posted 8/1/08

leviathan343 wrote:


SephirothXIII wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


SephirothXIII wrote:

Yeah, I really don't like the idea of biofuel. Hell, the price of crops is rising because of the damn studies and it's not helping out those who already sacrifice all they have to scrap together meager portions of food for their kids. We really need to turn towards different, less consuming sources of energy. The whole concept of biofuel will never work, not matter what. Solar power, wind power, those are going in the right direction at least. Anything's better than gasoline, I guess, though.


Nuclear is the most logical and beneficial at this point, but we as a country are not very enthusiastic about this concept.


Uh, I'll admit, I don't know too much about nuclear generators, but if they work and produce less waste, then what's wrong with them? Americans have always been the most paranoid and sometimes it just gets in the way of progress. If we don't put ourselves at risk once in awhile, all that we gain won't mean a damn thing. But the fact is this: if we don't stop this global warming crap, we're all gonna... regret it. Why not risk something monumentally less than the entire freaking human race?


It's pretty much the paranoia you're talking about. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl...the idea of nuclear power plants conjures up fears of mass radiation poisoning and death. Yet France is deriving the majority of its energy from nuclear power, and they'll doing quite well. There are even methods that drastically cut down on nuclear waste; the funny thing is, the government has refused to fund such technology.


*sigh* Makes you wonder, huh?
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 8/3/08

zendude wrote:
Aside from the radiation and accidents, there are so many other factors that is wrong with nuclear.
Reasons:
- Several Plants are needed to just produce energy: a plant to purify/enrich and produce the uranium and a plant to produce the energy. Those plants take years and lots of money to build, and not to mention the supply of uranium and clean water, which is also scarce.
- A nuclear fuel rod get contaminated after 5% of it is used, leaving the 95% as waste. Recycling is very dangerous and expensive. And storing nuclear waste is getting troublesome, i.e. the Nevada area.
- The fact the energy grid right now is inefficient, only causes for nuclear power to be wasted quickly.




Enriching uranium for fuel isn't that difficult. Fuel-uranium requires far less enrichment than nuclear weapons grade enrichment.

The water in a nuclear power plant is mostly recycled. Many require a water source (doesn't have to be clean) to vent heat exhaust. As for uranium, there is enough uranium supply in the world to generate several hundred years of energy at the current growth rate.
A single pound of uranium can generate the same energy as 2,000,000 pounds of petroleum.

Also, decommissioned nuclear weapons can be used as nuclear fuel.

Also, more advanced light water reactors can be created to reprocess and reuse so called 'spent' nuclear fuel. (the nuclear technology on submarines is actually very advanced and able to reuse fuel older nuclear plants wouldn't be able to process)

As for storage, te actual quantity of the nuclear waste is quite small, but the main problem is transportation of the waste.

805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 8/3/08
All biofuels are not created equal.

Field Corn biofuels is inefficient and wasteful...and the use of food as fuel drives up food prices.

Sugar cane biofuels is more than 3x more efficient as corn biofuels (the natural sugars turn into ethanol 3x more efficiently than corn), and even the stalk of the canes can be burned for additional energy.

Also, there are current research done on algae that can also produce ethanol. Algae vats could be grown in land that isn't fertile enough to grow crops.
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 8/20/08

zendude wrote:
Here is a neat idea. How about genetically engineered biofuel plant stocks.


It's a neat idea, but where would we start? Sugarcanes are already pretty efficient at creating sugar for use in biofuels...and I don't think genetic engineering is at the level of where we can create plants that can do our bidding.

Although it'd be cool to see a plant that naturally produces ethanol

626 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / o.o;;
Offline
Posted 8/20/08
It's inevitable.

Right now, US's sacrificing so much soldiers just to get oil, PFFT terrorists. =.=

I wouldn't be surprised if US would spend twice that amount of cash, even triple, once oil becomes scarce in the world. Economy => Environment. It's a fact.
Posted 8/20/08
I'm not a big fan of biofuels, but I think they are necessary to a certain extent. it's true that biofuels can save us from expelling a variety of harmful toxics which I cannot remember, but it releases CO2 the same way and makes people craving for money to destroy our precious forests, which carry an enormous variety of all kinds of living beings. If I'm not wrong, trucks and machines destroyed trees in the amazon rainforest the size of brazil's second biggest city in just 3 weeks, and the numbers just keep on going up. Also, the way things are going it's better to prepare your own crops to feed your family, because food prices have jumped like crazy these days... Solar and hydrogen powered vehicles would be the best, but who knows if we`re gonna last until this kind of technology can actually be used for the population in general, in addition to the industries, which don't feel like gathering costs. Nuclear energy is interesting as well, but I worry about the litter they throw into the seas.Although in a smaller scale, I also find interesting how waves and volcanos have been used to generate energy. But in the end I just feel that if the world population was cut into at least 1/4, we wouldn't need to be worrying so mcuh about food and fuels. I guess Thomas Malthus was right after all.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.