Why we should care about alternative energy and fuel

[dontdo_that]

Just some thoughts that were shaking up in the can :rofl:. This is all my personal opinion and I don't intend to offend anyone :flipoff:

Unlike some of the effects of Global Warming, the transition to and the increased appearance of alternative fuels is neither deniable nor ominous. We hear about Fuel Cell Vehicles, E85 Ethanol in over 10 Chevy models, buses running on compressed natural gas and electric vehicles. This directly affects all of us motorsports enthusiasts. Drifters, wheelers, motox riders, boating enthusiasts, etc.

Alternative fuels are something that can benefit everyone, treehuggers and motorsports enthusiasts alike. For us, there probably wouldn't be a significant change, other than the next rig you purchase might run on something other than gasoline, but whatever that is, it will probably be readily available. Chances are you, your next rig will also have the choice of gasoline. But for us liberal wheelers, its a sense of knowing we have moved away from a highly pollutant fuel (Assuming whatever altnerative is less polluting and has less particulate matter than gas or non-bio blend diesel).

In addition, alternative energy and fuels have a tremendous potential to spark new industries and encourage economic growth. Everything from the chemical engineering and research involved, to the manufacturing, and finally to the construction of sites that are properly equipped to deliver such alternative fuels - all of this has a tremendous potential to create new jobs (for those who are interested in construction, science, enigneering, business) and investment opportunities.

In an industry where several companies compete to satisfy the consumer, price gouging is kept to a minimum. Or at least, it probably won't be worse than it is now. In addition, the shift to renewable alternative fuels and energies will eliminate the possibility of price hikes in energy due to a dwindling supply (I don't know how many of you believe in the Peak Oil Theory, but whether or not it is true will become irrelevant).

I personally can't think of any reason why we would OPPOSE alternative fuel and its benefits other than the fact that yeah we might get taxed more and by human nature, we hate taxes.
But as a liberal enthusiast, I support alternative energy and fuel - I just hope Fuel Cell Vehicles sound as throaty as v8 gas engines :bowdown:

I wan to know what you folks think. Why do you advocate or discourage the development of alternative energy research, implementation and manufacturing? :tongueout:

[bamachem]

as a conservative enthusiast i also support alternative energy and fuels. the sooner we cut out dependence on fossil fuels, cut pollution/emissions, and quit pumping our money into the middle-east, the better.

[oly884]

Myself (being conservative if you haven't seen my other posts ;) ) believes that we need to find sources of energy within our own boarders. Both common sources we use currently, and alternative.

There's no magical switch to make every vehicle run on another source of energy (as much as I wish they would). So, we must be able to produce energy while we research other forms of energy.

My personal feeling is that we need to move towards nuclear energy to power our cities and commuter vehicles. The US has plenty of uranium ore to power this country for quite a long time.

As for the waste, we have Yucca Mountain. Or, my idea, launch the stuff into the sun, it won't care.

Nuclear fission is the cleanest, and largest, source of energy we have before nuclear fusion is fully developed and working. Sure there is solar and wind, but neither of those would supply the energy needs that this country, and the rest of the world needs. Solar and wind, however, is great for individuals to supplement energy consumption (hell I use solar in my camper and I love it, in fact I'm considering adding another 100 or so watts)

I don't think many people discourage the development of alternative forms of energy, but the skepticism revolves around the ultimate cost and benefit of the energy source.

I'll use ethanol as an example. There was, and to some degree still is, a large push for making ethanol from corn. However, anyone who can search on the internet has found that the ethanol yield from corn is so low that a good estimate puts about 40% or so of the continental US for growing corn, just to replace the fuel consumption in 2007. Clearly, not an option. Cellulosic is different though.

However, I spent my senior year (in chemical engineering) doing a project to make bioplastics from corn stover (corn stalks). It does work, but we had to make some pretty hefty assumptions about the enzymes used to turn cellulose into glucose/xylose. To put in simply, the amount of enzymes needed exceeds what is produced today. But, at some point in the future, it will work.

It's a subject that we all need to get on the same page with. We can't argue over what sources of energy we need to use (let science and economics do that) but we must all be on the same page about the fact that oil will run out and we're getting it from a lot of people that we don't like too much.

[AxleIke]

First of all, OP, WELL SAID.

Second of all, the solution truly is RIGHT in front of us. Biodiesel. Specifically B100. This stuff runs on a STANDARD diesel motor (read: no engine mods). The biggest hold up right now is getting something into the veggie oil to keep it from congealing and going gelatinous. If more time was spent on it, I think we'd be there.

Next best part? We can produce 100% of what we need right in our own borders. This stuff can be made from the parts of corn and soy that we THROW AWAY!

Better yet, Biodiesel produces only about 1-2% emissions crap, so you'd almost NEVER have to go get your truck tested. In addition, throw a turbo at your motor, you have moderate power, and get 30 mpg.

Now, for electricity, its a bit more complicated. I'm not convinced that diesel turbines are as efficient as other forms, so nuclear and/or soloar may be good to think about.




Myself (being conservative if you haven't seen my other posts ;) ) believes that we need to find sources of energy within our own boarders. Both common sources we use currently, and alternative.

There's no magical switch to make every vehicle run on another source of energy (as much as I wish they would). So, we must be able to produce energy while we research other forms of energy.

My personal feeling is that we need to move towards nuclear energy to power our cities and commuter vehicles. The US has plenty of uranium ore to power this country for quite a long time.

As for the waste, we have Yucca Mountain. Or, my idea, launch the stuff into the sun, it won't care.

Nuclear fission is the cleanest, and largest, source of energy we have before nuclear fusion is fully developed and working. Sure there is solar and wind, but neither of those would supply the energy needs that this country, and the rest of the world needs. Solar and wind, however, is great for individuals to supplement energy consumption (hell I use solar in my camper and I love it, in fact I'm considering adding another 100 or so watts)

I don't think many people discourage the development of alternative forms of energy, but the skepticism revolves around the ultimate cost and benefit of the energy source.

I'll use ethanol as an example. There was, and to some degree still is, a large push for making ethanol from corn. However, anyone who can search on the internet has found that the ethanol yield from corn is so low that a good estimate puts about 40% or so of the continental US for growing corn, just to replace the fuel consumption in 2007. Clearly, not an option. Cellulosic is different though.

However, I spent my senior year (in chemical engineering) doing a project to make bioplastics from corn stover (corn stalks). It does work, but we had to make some pretty hefty assumptions about the enzymes used to turn cellulose into glucose/xylose. To put in simply, the amount of enzymes needed exceeds what is produced today. But, at some point in the future, it will work.

It's a subject that we all need to get on the same page with. We can't argue over what sources of energy we need to use (let science and economics do that) but we must all be on the same page about the fact that oil will run out and we're getting it from a lot of people that we don't like too much.


Well said.

Couple of things.

I agree that Ethanol is a total waste. And, it does nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Second, I doubt the sun will ever be seriously considered for dumping nuclear waste. You have to shoot that stuff up, and the possibility exists that it could blow up, meaning LOTS of radiation poisoning over a large area. In a class in college that I took concerning alt energy, I suggested the same thing. About 1/4 of the class supported me, 3/4 did not.

Anyway, great discussion!

[ecchamberlin]

I am not nearly as technically intelligent as you gentlemen but to comment on the first posting, if there was a way to convert my Runner to an alt fuel I would do it right now.

I think that if we want to ensure that the fuel resources are from within our borders then like mentioned it will be common to go to a gas station and instead of seeing Regular, Mid, and Premium we may see Gasoline, Biodiesel, CNG. I don't think gas will or should go away because we can continue to produce it here and that industry has a place still. I also think that the idea of building more Nuclear Power Stations is a good one for the option of all electric plug in cars which make a lot of sense for metro commuter's vehicle needs.

Not sure if many know this but my Father in Law is the Fire/Emergency Services Chief for Philips Petro on the North Slope in Alaska and they are considering building a new natural gas pipeline next to the oil pipeline. Natural gas is extracted as a byproduct of oil drilling and up until now is re injected because they have no way of shipping it down to the lower 48. This would be another alt fuels source on US soil.

I don't think that any one source is the cure all fix all either.

Don't want to turn this awesome thread political but imagine if even half of the money currently directed to wards the Iraq war was funneled into alt fuels research at the University level when the war is over.

Seems like a lot of money put to good use.

[arjan]

Corn production for biodiesel has its downfalls also:
http://www.ontariocorn.org/envt/envsust.html



Corn & The Environment

Sustainability of Corn Production

Sustainable development was defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development (the "Bruntland Commission") as "development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs ".

Corn production in Canada includes features which could be classed as sustainable, and others which are not. Sustainable features include the use of sunshine, carbon dioxide and rainfall as the principal ingredients for corn growth. Almost no corn grown for grain or forage is irrigated in Canada.

The decline in soil organic matter levels associated with older methods of corn production could be classed as non sustainable. However, with conservation tillage techniques and higher corn yields, future soil organic matter levels can be expected to increase when land is planted to corn.

Conservation tillage and crop rotations which leave the soil surface protected against the action of wind, rainfall, and melting snow have markedly reduced the amount of soil erosion traditionally associated with corn production.

Pesticides (mostly herbicides in the case of corn production) are currently made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource. However, the quantities used are low - generally 2 to 3 kg/hectare of active ingredient - and declining.

The same situation exists for fossil fuels. An average of about 53 litres of petroleum-based fuels per hectare are used in field operations to grow corn (Cemcorp, 1992). This quantity is declining. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991) has estimated that fossil fuel usage in field crop production can be reduced by almost 50% with no-till technology.

The technology exists to use ethanol made from corn, or "soy-diesel" made from soybeans, as on-farm fuels. Refuse from corn production - i.e. corn cobs and husks - can be, and is being, used as a fuel for grain drying and for on-farm heating. The extent to which these uses of renewable fuel energy in agriculture expand will depend on the efficiencies of new technology and economics.

There are no effective substitutes for potassium and phosphate fertilizers used in the production of corn - and virtually all other agricultural crops.

The supply of available potassium in Canada is enormous - sufficient to meet predicted market needs for at least many centuries - and the energy cost needed for mining, transportation and application is small (Cemcorp, 1992).

With phosphate fertilizer, large global reserves of rock phosphate exist - the closest to Canada being the southeastern United States - but some energy is needed to process this rock into available plant fertilizer. (The availability of phosphate to plants from rock phosphate is very low.) Corn biomass energy could be used to reduce rock phosphate, but this is not likely to occur unless the price of non-biomass energy becomes significantly higher. Fortunately, the annual phosphate fertility requirement by corn, and energy used in meeting this requirement, is generally smaller than for potassium or nitrogen (Cemcorp, 1992).

The manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer, using natural gas as the energy source and atmospheric nitrogen gas as the feedstock, represents about half of the fossil-fuel energy requirement for corn production (Cemcorp, 1992). A similar situation exists for most non-legume, high-yielding farm crops.

Efficient use of livestock manure represents one means of reducing the need for synthetic nitrogen fertilizers.

A second involves the use of high-nitrogen-fixing crops such as alfalfa in the crop rotation, although this can only occur if there is a use for the legume forage produced. This generally means production of ruminant livestock animals such as cattle and sheep.

Annual legumes such as soybeans, field beans, and even forage legumes grown as a part- season cover crop (for example, red clover after winter wheat) normally can provide only a modest percentage of the soil nitrogen compounds needed for successful production of corn the following year.

Non-agricultural products, for example urban wastes, could potentially serve as a source of nitrogen fertilizer. However, health hazards (to both plants and humans) can exist with this material, and procedures commonly used to reduce these hazards - such as composting - tend to reduce the fertilizer value. (About half, or more, of the nitrogen in plant wastes may be lost by leaching or volatilization during composting.)

Biotechnology may provide a solution if researchers are able to transfer nitrogen-fixing abilities, genetically, from legume species into corn.

Until this occurs, the requirement for nitrogen fertilizers will remain the least sustainable feature of corn production, given the impracticality and environmental risks of supplying all of the crop's needs using animal manure, perennial legumes or urban wastes as dominant sources of nitrogen supply. The combustion of biomass as an energy source for nitrogen fixation also seems impractical, given the size of the need, and the high scale efficiencies associated with nitrogen fertilizer manufacture in large, "world-scale" plants.

It should be noted that the limiting resource is energy, not supply of nitrogen gas. Global atmosphere is almost 80% nitrogen gas!

The source of fossil energy for nitrogen fertilizer manufacture is natural gas, and Canadian natural gas reserves are relatively large - unlike those for light crude petroleum. Known Canadian natural gas reserves are equivalent to about 30-40 years of Canadian consumption, and Canada is a substantial exporter of natural gas (National Energy Board, 1991).

This dependence on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers is not unique to corn. The requirement per tonne of grain or seed produced is similar for most major non-legume crops. Technology now being developed to permit the times and rates of nitrogen application to be more closely tailored to individual crop needs, should permit the overall need to be reduced significantly - though not eliminated.

[arjan]

Basically we are using up oil reserves now, we will essentially just be switching to phosphate as fertilizer.
Corn also need a fair bit of water which isn't available everywhere.

I am not saying it's growing corn for fuel is a bad idea, but it brings along other problems:

-Corn prices have gone up, making food in Mexico too expensive for the poor population (it's a primary food source for them)
-Fertilizer prices already have gone up because more corn was grown last year. Corn produces more tonnes of material per acre, so it needs more nutrients (fertilizer) per acre to compensate for that.
-Corn has more foliage then wheat, therefore it evaporates more water. The need for water will increase.

Just some ideas to be put out there, I am not against corn for fuel production. We will however be dealing with a host of other problems if we decide to go that route.
It's not a magic cure-all which we can all do within our borders.

Outside our borders I can foresee problems in for example south America, where they would grow corn in the rainforest.
By not using nutrients and moving on to new parcels all the time (clearing more forest) they could produce deserts in a fairly short time.

[AxleIke]

To be sure, there are challenges. Ruining soil is a big one.

Up until recently, the cost of corn and soy have been a big issue. However, it was recently discovered that you can produce biodiesel from the waste products during production. Both soy and corn are extensively processed for many different products, and much of the waste from those processes can actually be turned into B100.

Now, the people who came up with this (drawing a blank on the name right now) claim we can get ALL of our bio diesel from this process. I'm not so sure, but its a good start.

There is no perfect solution. All energy will have waste or tradeoffs. As long as we get off of oil, I think we should be good.

[MTL_4runner]

Or, my idea, launch the stuff into the sun, it won't care.

David, hopefully this is just a joke......
Launching all our nuclear waste into the sun would make Bush's new budget look like a massive cash windfall. :laugh:

[BruceTS]

heck with alternate fuel sources :flipoff: let's just use up all the worlds supply of oil first :tongueout: then we can use our domestic resources and let the arabs fall back to the stone ages.... :hillbill:

I sure do wish they would have allowed the Hilux Surf 3.0L turbo in the USA, I would have jumped on it in a heartbeat and definately converted it to biodiesel......

[Erich_870]

One positive aspect of the advances in alternative energy sources that shouldn't be over looked is development of REGIONALLY sustainable sources.

IE, the Southwest should be investing in wind and solar. The Heartland or bread basket should look at bio fuels. The Pacific Northwest should look at hydro, geothermal (actual hot water, not just constant ground temps) and bio mass from the timber industry.

Here in Juneau the local power company has a new hydro power plant that will come on line next summer. It is 100% renewable, clean, and because of the topography, does not impact salmon (100ft water falls :thumbup:)

We currently are doing NOTHING with the wood waste though. All of our mills have been closed do to lawsuits from environmental groups. :argue:

In Juneau and all of Southeast Alaska, People heat their homes with wood heat (wood stoves) or fuel oil (boilers or toyo stoves) We import fuel from Washington! :screwy: What we should be doing is using our wood waste and bio mass for home heating. They sell wood pellets from WISCONSON in our Home Depot store yet we live in one of the most productive temporal rain forest on earth.

Erich

[dontdo_that]

Wow, its astonishing how many good ideas there are floating around. A few things really stuck out to me:


let the arabs fall back to the stone ages....

Lol, not to be racist or anything but given the levels of violence and contension coupled with the quality of life there.. I really don't think they are too far off.

I too agree that ethanol is not a good solution for alternative fuels. As chemical engineers (Andy and David) from my understanding, or as was demonstrated to me by my Chem professor, the production of ethanol involves the release of a tremendous amount of CO2 gas which some feel is a contributing factor to Global Warming. All of this, in addition to the other negative ramifications of using food based alternative energies makes ethanol look less ideal.

The solution lies with an alternative energy that is renewable, inexpensive to produce and doesn't incur damages or other unbalancing effects on other necessary industries like food. AxelIke mentioned Biodiesel, which I too believe to be a solution to petrol diesel for those of us who love our diesel trucks. Not every average consumer needs to drive a diesel, but I can really see Biodiesel replacing diesel in as much as 70-100% blends bio with 30-0% petrol. The reason for this is largely that they have found Biodiesel can be produced from Jatropa, which is an invasive weed that doesn't need to be fertilized or something like that.

I am going to follow the Fuel Cell thing more closely too.

[gabe]

I don't know why everyone has forgotten, but a perfect solution has already been invented... in 1985, the delorean used a product called Mr. Fusion... you put virtually anything into Mr. Fusion and it produces the fuel out of the items placed into it... there were other high tech options available also... they include the Flux Capacitor, and special edition wheels (with Jets) that flip to the side to turn your vehicle into a hover craft... :lliar: sorry, I couldn't resist :rofl: :banana:

[oly884]

Or, my idea, launch the stuff into the sun, it won't care.

David, hopefully this is just a joke......
Launching all our nuclear waste into the sun would make Bush's new budget look like a massive cash windfall. :laugh:


Haha, partially joking. I haven't really sat down and looked at the logistics of it. BUT! If we could feasibly get it to space, safely of course, then it would solve the problem of what to do with the waste.

Like I said, I don't know the logistics of it, such as; how much nuclear waste is produced, if it's possible to make a container that could handle a catastrophic failure, and the economics of it.

Is it pie in the sky? Yeah, probably. So that leaves us with Yucca mountain, and there's a lot of people not happy about that. So, what do we do?

[MTL_4runner]

Haha, partially joking. I haven't really sat down and looked at the logistics of it. BUT! If we could feasibly get it to space, safely of course, then it would solve the problem of what to do with the waste.

Like I said, I don't know the logistics of it, such as; how much nuclear waste is produced, if it's possible to make a container that could handle a catastrophic failure, and the economics of it.

Is it pie in the sky? Yeah, probably. So that leaves us with Yucca mountain, and there's a lot of people not happy about that. So, what do we do?


Sorry be so skeptical, but having been in the rocket launch business I can tell you it would be nowhere near economically feasible with the current technology anyway. You're looking at the VERY low end of around $1000 per lb (probably more like $2-3k / lb) of waste to get it into space and headed towards the sun....not to mention the weight of encapsualtion required to keep it from frigging up the electronics......than add on top of that uranium is one of the heaviest substances on earth (that's why depleted uranium rounds penetrate almost any armor on the battlefield).....it doesn't look like something very worth pursuing.

IMHO if you're gonna go nuclear, bury the waste, and put the money towards finding renewable sources to replace it.

[MTL_4runner]

One positive aspect of the advances in alternative energy sources that shouldn't be over looked is development of REGIONALLY sustainable sources.

IE, the Southwest should be investing in wind and solar. The Heartland or bread basket should look at bio fuels. The Pacific Northwest should look at hydro, geothermal (actual hot water, not just constant ground temps) and bio mass from the timber industry.


Erich, very good comments and I totally agree. :thumbup:
You need to use what you have locally, not a one size fits all solution.

[oly884]

Haha, partially joking. I haven't really sat down and looked at the logistics of it. BUT! If we could feasibly get it to space, safely of course, then it would solve the problem of what to do with the waste.

Like I said, I don't know the logistics of it, such as; how much nuclear waste is produced, if it's possible to make a container that could handle a catastrophic failure, and the economics of it.

Is it pie in the sky? Yeah, probably. So that leaves us with Yucca mountain, and there's a lot of people not happy about that. So, what do we do?


Sorry be so skeptical, but having been in the rocket launch business I can tell you it would be nowhere near economically feasible with the current technology anyway. You're looking at the VERY low end of around $1000 per lb (probably more like $2-3k / lb) of waste to get it into space and headed towards the sun....not to mention the weight of encapsualtion required to keep it from frigging up the electronics......than add on top of that uranium is one of the heaviest substances on earth (that's why depleted uranium rounds penetrate almost any armor on the battlefield).....it doesn't look like something very worth pursuing.

IMHO if you're gonna go nuclear, bury the waste, and put the money towards finding renewable sources to replace it.


Jamie, thanks for the info! Like I said, I had no idea on the feasibility, so from this info, I can definitely see that it would not be economical.

[fustercluck]

If the alternative fuel is better, cheaper or both than we have now, then it will be successful. The closest thing to a viable alterantive technology for electricity is nuclear fission. Sadly, the radicals and lunatics protested so enthusiastically, that we have been denied even that source of domestic energy.

[oly884]

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/21/science-magazine-declares-ethanol-worse-for-the-earth-than-fossi/

[Bob98SR5]

If the alternative fuel is better, cheaper or both than we have now, then it will be successful. The closest thing to a viable alterantive technology for electricity is nuclear fission. Sadly, the radicals and lunatics protested so enthusiastically, that we have been denied even that source of domestic energy.


Exactly. If you guys wonder why, for example, CA cannot expand or build a new nuclear power plant, it's because we do not and have not created a federally approved dumpsite. The one that has received the most attention is the one in Nevada (Yucca Mountain) which has became Harry Reid's political meal ticket by his constant opposition to it. This is the dumpsite first studied and approved by both Clinton and Bush administrations. Our waste is piling up rather than being put into safe, guarded facility.

Nevadans: am I off the mark here? I only read what's printed.

And that's what kills me: we have the land, means, and capability to expand nuclear power, but the politicians talk out of both sides of their filthy, hypocritical mouths. Until this is done, our nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil (Canada, middle east, Venezuela, etc) will continue.

Erich: yes, regional alternative sources need to be developed and the federal govt should play a large part in funding additional research as well as writing off R&D expenses as additional incentives for development. In a small way, there are "green-tech" venture capitalists already doing this---some of the same players who created the tech/dot com boom are behind it (Vinod Khosa (sp?) comes to mind. I'm glad to see to see private industry taking charge here.

As far as on an individual basis, people must do what they can. e.g. make their homes more insulated, use CFLs, drive less, buy more fuel efficient cars, etc. but most of all, vote out politicians who only pay lip service to smart energy policy.

[scottiac]

I think as population increases, demand will always increase, no matter how efficient the individual consumption is, but if population flattens out (which it occasionally shows signs of), then individual measures to reduce demand become a very good tool.

If we (insert any region here) want to be economically strong and self-sufficient, then we should look at tailoring our demand to our resources. I really liked Erich's comments on that.

What kills me is this kind of reduction in demand is totally available TODAY, and doesn't require an as-yet un-achieved technological advance. Bob threw out several examples; lots more are out there.

I am just dying to see how the automotive X-prize contest works out. (I have a deposit down on one of the competitor's models... heh, so I'm a little biased.)