New study quantifies differences in biofuel crops, impact on environment
There are plenty of flex-fuel capable cars on the roads, but there is not nearly enough ethanol available to power all of them on the gasoline alternative. It's no secret that corn-based ethanol is not the answer to our oil woes, but if that's the case, what alternatives should we be looking closest at? Regular readers are surely aware that cellulosic ethanol is the way to go when it comes to alcohol-based fuels, but even with that process, a crop of some sort is required. Additionally, biodiesel offers plenty of advantages over petroleum-based diesel fuel, but an oil-rich crop is required for its creation as well. A new study from the University of Washington was commissioned to find the most desirable crops for biofuels which suggests that algae and fast-growing trees be considered as the cream-of-the-crop, so to speak."While some biofuels may be an improvement over traditional fuels, we believe we should focus much more on the biofuels of the future that can be developed in small spaces, rather than extensively on crop lands," according to lead author Martha Groom. "We also must shun biofuels that are grown by clearing biologically-rich habitats, such as tropical rainforests, as has occurred with oil palm and some other biofuels," she adds. The study also recommends that a special look be taken at crops which sequester carbon as they grow.
We may add that another benefit to both algae and fast-growing trees is that nobody is growing them already for food.
[Source: Science Daily]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
KarenRei 7:01PM (4/01/2008)
Fast growing trees... I wonder if they'll grow sequoias and redwoods? Contrary to popular myth, they're actually some of the fastest growing evergreens in the world. Naturally, the felling of old-growth sequoias and redwoods would be abhorrent.
Reply
snerdley 10:35AM (4/02/2008)
Maybe we should consider looking at oil. It doesn't require any effort or resources to grow it. All you have to do is punch a hole in the ground, and it comes bubbling up to the surface. We already have an infrastructure in place and vehicles that run well on the refined product we all know as gasoline. Gasoline is something like 33% more efficient than alternate sources of energy so that should appease those who are complaining about the high cost of corn tortillas.
Rumor has it oil reserves are sufficient to carry us through the next 100 plus years at least before supply begins to be a problem. Of course, 50 years from now we may have discovered reserves that push the date of oil shortages out another 100 years. Go figure.
Reply
Bob Moffitt (Bob from ALAMN) 10:56AM (4/02/2008)
Yes, oil is a Mircle Fuel. So pure babies could drink it. Zero emissions, too. Spill a little? Mother Earth loves oil -- and all her little birds and fishes do, too!
Best of all, much of the world's oil is locating under the land of real friendly folks who love us and will practically give it way to make our lives easier.
It's not like that nasty E85 or biodiesel stuff at all. Once you use it, its GONE! No need to make more.
PS: Time magazine agrees!
Reply
sparky 12:54PM (4/02/2008)
Oil is something we need to "get by with" for the time being until we find a better way to get from point A to point B. ICEs have been around long enough for us to just about master how they work, and there are plenty of improvements that we can make to them so that they use less oil. There is more than enough oil to support us for the time being (there are larger oil reserves in the United States that can be easily and environmentally tapped than in the middle east) until we "perfect" or at least master a new propulsion system for our vehicles. I'm not saying we should just slack off and guzzle gas till the cows come home without regard for the planet on which we live; I just think that we should stick to improving the efficiency and emissions of ICEs while we look for the best method of propulsion for our vehicles. We are not ready to completely replace the ICE just yet; we need to develop new technologies and improve existing ones. Nuclear power plants do not produce emissions and are quite safe, with the correct safety measures, and would be ideal sources of electricity to power our vehicles once batteries become more efficient. I believe that electric, or mostly electric (hybrid) vehicles are the next step in the transportation of humans from place to place. Perhaps an easily renewable, economically friendly, super clean burning fuel could also be the next step in the evolution of the ICE. It is difficult to predict the future but if we address our current problems in a realistic, sensible manner by improving things over time and not leaping before we look, (a human baby does not simply up and start running around, he/she needs to start with small steps going short distances first) we will accomplish great things (slow and steady wins the race). I am not trying to "flame" or push one type of thinking, I'm just trying to peacefully suggest a tried and true method of approaching problems and dealing with them accordingly.
Reply
Noah 2:54PM (4/02/2008)
Now with Cellulose-derived E85, what of the impacts of not using the leftover cornstalks and other plants to be plowed under to provide some nutrients for the soil? I dunno, I read something like that. Probably not important.
I'm all for algae-derived diesel. Except if a super-algae escapes and takes over all our fresh-water ways!
Reply
Just Watching 6:23PM (4/04/2008)
The water table on our farm is droping dramaticaly every year so we will soon be dry land farmers. Good luck making a crop without water. You better be thinking about the food supply. Forget the biofuel issue, we are running out of irrigation water fast!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
EJ 3:47PM (4/06/2008)
I just want to add something to the Sparky's comment. Alternative technologies to the ICE are long time present. For example you can check the work of Edwin Gray Sr. and its "splitting the positive". Of course you won't see any similar thing in a car until the last oil well is depleted.
Reply
TheSUBWAY.com 2:47PM (4/07/2008)
We found an interesting article about the problems with Ethanol on ConsumerReports.org:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/03/ethanol-e85.html
"But there are some problems with increasing ethanol blends. Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, so increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline will likely result in lower fuel economy. Increasing standard fuel blends from zero to 10 percent ethanol, as is happening today, has little or no impact on fuel economy. In tests, the differences occur within the margin of error, about 0.5 percent. Further increasing ethanol levels to 20 percent reduces fuel economy between 1 and 3 percent, according to testing by the DOE and General Motors. Evaluations are underway to determine if E20 will burn effectively in today's engines without impacting reliability and longevity, and also assessing potential impact on fuel economy."
TheSUBWAY.com would like to invite readers to post their own views and ideas in TheSUBWAY.com's Investor Forum:
http://investor-forum.thesubway.com/
Reply