15 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually there is a surefire way to reduce global warming: Reduce the human population by about 90%, global warming goes away. That is the root cause, 6 billion people on the planet and rising quickly.
As for the whole global warming thing, my sister has convinced my that the solution lies in better farming practices.
16 Apr 09
Originally posted by sonhouseOf course humans are the root cause and better birth control would go a long way towards dealing with the problem. However our various political systems rarely think beyond the next election and birth control is a 20 year plan.
Actually there is a surefire way to reduce global warming: Reduce the human population by about 90%, global warming goes away. That is the root cause, 6 billion people on the planet and rising quickly.
If on the other hand we are talking about simply wiping some people out then we don't need to wipe out 90%, only the richest 10% as they contribute 90% of the global warming.
The main problem with global warming is that it is such a political issue that there is so much misinformation being spread about it.
16 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBiofuels are a big no-no. I can't remember when exactly, but recently they led to a massive increase in the price of food in developing countries - people couldn't afford the basics any more. This was because people were being paid to grow crops for biofuels, not for food. The outcome was inevitable...
I to have been very sceptical of the wisdom of trying to create a 'Hydrogen economy' -I don’t think that would be the most practical way to stop carbon emissions because there are just too many problems with hydrogen. Better to stick to ultra energy dense batteries and ultracaps etc or, if not that, better to develop a fuel cell that can directly use ...[text shortened]... more than adequate for cars if a reasonably energy efficient fuel cell can be made to use it.
The Guardian:
http://tinyurl.com/4k3atu
The Times:
http://tinyurl.com/35h5l4
Further, the prefix "bio-" implies "green". There is nothing green about biofuels. Apart from maybe they convert CO2 to oxygen when they are growing, but I think that might be getting towards the bottom of the barrel.
16 Apr 09
Originally posted by sonhouseHonda have already made a Hydrogen powered car, called the FCX Clarity. Apparently, if you live in California you can rent it! However, I believe that this car won't be made commercially until 2018.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090406102049.htm
Can anyone here figure out just how much hydrogen this stuff can store in a real car? The figures show the surface area but are short on actual storage details.
16 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SwlabrBiofuels are an example of how politics is mixed up in the whole global warming issue. They weren't the only reason for the spike in food prices, there were several other factors including poor wheat harvests in Australia and East Asia and increased consumption and buying power in China and India for example. And of course the simple fact that the worlds population is growing.
Biofuels are a big no-no. I can't remember when exactly, but recently they led to a massive increase in the price of food in developing countries - people couldn't afford the basics any more. This was because people were being paid to grow crops for biofuels, not for food.
The main reason biofuels are used is that the US subsidizes its farmers, and the farmers discovered a way to get even more subsidies ie label their products 'green'. Of course it is more complicated than that but at the end of the day it was not science that lead to biofuels but rather politics and money.
We must also remember that a large part of the drive to reduce fossil fuel consumption in the US and some other countries is to reduce dependency on foreign oil. So it is not all about global warming. However it has been shown that biofuel production uses more fossil fuel than simply burning fossil fuel - it is the subsidies that make it economically desirable.
There are however other forms of biofuel that do work and may be even better in future. Brazil for example has a fairly successful biofuel industry based on sugar cane. But again this is more about dealing with foreign fuel dependency than it is about reducing global warming. Agriculture is responsible for a significant proportion of global warming gases and is also the best solution to dealing with global warming. Better agricultural practices has a massive potential for storing carbon in the soil.
16 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Swlabr….Biofuels are a big no-no.
Biofuels are a big no-no. I can't remember when exactly, but recently they led to a massive increase in the price of food in developing countries - people couldn't afford the basics any more. This was because people were being paid to grow crops for biofuels, not for food. The outcome was inevitable...
The Guardian:
http://tinyurl.com/4k3atu
The Times: when they are growing, but I think that might be getting towards the bottom of the barrel.
..…
I would agree that at the present and in most countries if the biofuel comes from a crop then that crop is likely to displace an unacceptable proportion of crops for food thus causing food shortages. There may be a few exceptions to this in countries where sugar cane can give huge yields. But even in countries where sugar cane can give huge yields, there is a lot of wastage because the resulting sugar is normally converted to alcohol using yeast and this conversion process uses up much of the chemical energy in the sugar and releases it in the form of waste-heat (AT LEAST 655kJ of waste heat per kg of sugar converted if my calculations are correct) which is very inefficient.
But if the sugar could be used DIRECTLY as fuel without farther processing (in a special fuel cell made to use sugar directly) instead of it having to be converted into alcohol first then there is potentially virtually no energy wasted there which would mean you can in effect get more useful fuel using less land area planted up with sugar cane or sugar beat and this could mean avoiding an unacceptable proportion of crops for food being displaced -that is basically my idea.
Also, note that biofuel could be also potentially made from various forms of organic waste such as waste straw, grass clippings, dead leaves, sewage, wasted food etc (there is ongoing research in this area of biofuel production) RATHER than from crops thus this form of biofuel production would NOT displace food crops -surely you wouldn’t call that biofuel from that source a “no-no”?
17 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI agree with just about everything in your post.
But if the sugar could be used DIRECTLY as fuel without farther processing (in a special fuel cell made to use sugar directly) instead of it having to be converted into alcohol first then there is potentially virtually no energy wasted there which would mean you can in effect get more useful fuel using less land area planted up with sugar cane or sug ...[text shortened]... voiding an unacceptable proportion of crops for food being displaced -that is basically my idea.
However I have never really bought the whole food land for biofuel land. The world is not short of land and if more biofuel is grown then more cropland will be sown, it is a question of what else would be on that land. The real problem with bio-fuels is that vast areas of rain forest have been cleared to grow palm oil. In terms of trying to save our planet that is the most stupid thing to do.
17 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf such a fuel were produced then I would agree that it was certainly more responsible than other biofuels, and, indeed, oil. However, my secondary problem with biofuels is that they only address half of the fuel problems we are facing. They come from a renewable source, but they are still just as harmful to the environment as conventional fuels.
...surely you wouldn’t call that biofuel from that source a “no-no”?
17 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you claim that biofuels don't, or perhaps shouldn't, cause food shortages?
I agree with just about everything in your post.
However I have never really bought the whole food land for biofuel land. The world is not short of land and if more biofuel is grown then more cropland will be sown, it is a question of what else would be on that land. The real problem with bio-fuels is that vast areas of rain forest have been cleared to grow palm oil. In terms of trying to save our planet that is the most stupid thing to do.
17 Apr 09
Originally posted by SwlabrNo, biofuels are not as harmful to the environment as conventional fuels. It is not as straight forward as that blanket statement.
If such a fuel were produced then I would agree that it was certainly more responsible than other biofuels, and, indeed, oil. However, my secondary problem with biofuels is that they only address half of the fuel problems we are facing. They come from a renewable source, but they are still just as harmful to the environment as conventional fuels.
Some biofuels are harmful to the environment, sometimes even more than fossil fuels, but others are good for the environment.
Methane is many times worse as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide so capturing methane from certain sources (such as sewage or animal manure) and using it as fuel reduces the amount of greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere whilst simultaneously replacing fossil fuel use for the same purpose.
Remember also that obtaining fossil fuels itself produces a lot of green house gas, so one must not only measure emissions at the tail pipe.
17 Apr 09
Originally posted by SwlabrNo, I am claiming that it is not as simple as a land shortage issue. I certainly don't think that the use of biofuels necessarily has to result in food shortages. Food production is related to supply and demand, politics, weather and a host of other factors. In Zambia food production is mostly about politics. We could easily double our food production if there was a need to do so, land is not the problem. The main reason we do not produce more food is that it is simply not economically viable to do so - this is due to a range of factors. If biofuels pushed the price of food up then we would simply produce more until the price came back down. Even better, if biofuels made exporting food viable we would be celebrating.
So you claim that biofuels don't, or perhaps shouldn't, cause food shortages?
17 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Swlabr….If such a fuel were produced then ..…
If such a fuel were produced then I would agree that it was certainly more responsible than other biofuels, and, indeed, oil. However, my secondary problem with biofuels is that they only address half of the fuel problems we are facing. They come from a renewable source, but they are still just as harmful to the environment as conventional fuels.
Actually, some biofuels are already produced from waste around the world albeit in modest quantities.
For example:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:17ZM4xL_RUUJ:www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/NC25-06Biofuels.pdf/%24FILE/NC25-06Biofuels.pdf+%22current+production%22+Biofuels+from+waste+cooking+oil&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&lr=lang_en
“…The plant became operational in 2005 and will produce 50 million
litres of biodiesel per year from tallow and recycled cooking oil…”
-I haven’t had the time to find a more up-to-date link.