A few points I think we can agree upon:

1. Humans are using resources faster than they are being replenished.
2. The resources we currently rely upon will not sustain us indefinitly.
3. We must find an alternative or we must change our habits.
4. Only if we do both will humans continue to prosper
5. As the scientific draft of the forum, let us discuss the alternatives.


While we must see the pros and cons of various fuels, let us assume that we move the discussion away from the current fake market (via grants) in bioethanol within the US. Foodcrops are NOT a viable source for fuel.



Having researched various biofuels, and while there are several with potential, I would like to propose Biodiesel as the most suitable. This is taken from the main sectors of Bioethanol, Biodiesel and BioGas.

It's inevitable that plants will be more efficient at capturing sunlight than we will be able to achieve artificially for a long time. The drawback is that using plants for fuel means more land has to be converted to grow these plants, which could be counter-productive.

Governments really need to get involved more. If I could afford it, I would happily buy a "biocar" (I'm coining that word for my future use :p). The main drawback for me is that nowhere sells biofuel. Paradoxically, nowhere is going to sell biofuel unless people have biocars. Governments need to step in and force petrol stations to give people the option of selling these fuels, or the whole thing will not take off.

It would be a big and sudden jump.

Similar to the analogue/digitial switch?

It would be a big and sudden jump.

Similar to the analogue/digitial switch?

I wouldn't compare it to the analog/digital switch.

What will have to happen is to design a car that runs on both the current regular fuels and biofuels. With rising oil prices and proper production of biofuels hopefully gas stations would start offering it's consumers the cheaper version (biofuels). Slowly they will take over the market.

Free market solves everything? Soaring petrol prices make it viable?

It is not a given that plants are more efficient than an artificial product in the near future and while plants are limited to the earth, us humans can put solar panels in space.

On the other hand, perhaps we can use this energy to make fuels.

Any artificial product needs energy to create it in the first place.. how many years does it take for a solar pannel to recover the costs of manufacture?

A plant obtains it energy much easier.

But I don't forsee one ultimate solution, rather multi-many solutions used together.


The evolution of the home is one major step, making each an everyone more self sustained.

Its not that hard to be self sufficent in elec and water with current technologys, just give us time :)

There have been breakthroughs in solar panels within the last year that allow for much much cheaper solar panels, with easier deployment ( I think there was one company that made solar panels that could be just painted on basically ). As such, the energy to produce biofuels and to process them will soon be nearly free

biofuel is rediculous idea

biofuel is rediculous idea

Any particular reason as to why?

Nope. I disagree with four. There's no need to define "prosper" as "maintaining our current habits". In fact, my opinion is that we can only "continue to prosper" by changing our habits.

We're so caught up in "alternative fuel". It's like a band-aid for cancer.

Nope. I disagree with four. There's no need to define "prosper" as "maintaining our current habits". In fact, my opinion is that we can only "continue to prosper" by changing our habits.

We're so caught up in "alternative fuel". It's like a band-aid for cancer.

Think you have misread me... i did say change...

There are plenty of Hydrocarbons on this planet to sustain us at our rate for a minimum of 200 years.

Coal
Oil
Methane, (pigy poop)
methane, gas hydrates(http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

The worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.

Biogas is pretty poor for use on an industrial level.. we don't really have the systems designed.

An as for the resources on the planet.. how many are economically viable to obtain.. or environmentally viable?

Biofuels are essential to end carbon emissions in cars.

However, I believe that it would be easier for people to swallow using electric cars. I mean, the first cars were electric but were abandoned due to the fact fossil fuels produced more energy. Electric technology has improved much since those times.

Diesel came first and was killed off along with electric due to the petrol companies.

We are already seeing hybrids, so I suspect you may be right.


Buring Biofuels to generate lekky?

Any particular reason as to why?

come on, think
you need more soil if you want to produce fuel from plants
end result => devastation of forests or ecological dissaster, rise of food prices or social problems, rise of goverment subventions in biofuel productions or economical problems


Diesel came first and was killed off along with electric due to the petrol companies.

We are already seeing hybrids, so I suspect you may be right.


Buring Biofuels to generate lekky?

irony is a b.i.t.c.h,
and hybrids are the biggest polluters among cars

come on, think
you need more soil if you want to produce fuel from plants
end result => devastation of forests or ecological dissaster, rise of food prices or social problems, rise of goverment subventions in biofuel productions or economical problems


Jatropha

Helps stop desertification, can be grown in poor soils, not used for agriculture

Currently biofuels seem to be doing far more damage than good - deforestation to grow biofuel crops is already occurring, and doing ecological damage that spreads well beyond carbon emissions. Switching over existing farmland to biofuels has obvious undesirable effects on food production.

Even if you could switch to some less destructive option (can you ferment algae?) it seems very much the wrong direction. If you're that determined to cut net carbon emissions then you'd be better off going for an electric car, and charge it from nuclear (supplemented by renewable) power stations. Has certain practical problems in the time required to recharge the batteries. Hydrogen is the other obvious route, though again we don't really have a practical storage system.

As for burning biofuels to generate electricity - that's seriously back to front. Biofuel is only worth considering at all because it's easy to store and transport (like oil). If you're just burning biomass in a power station, you may as well burn any old plant matter without fermenting it and extracting a fluid.

Ferment yeast, bioreactor algaes.

Yeasts so potential.. there is lots of development in their heat tolerances and pH resistance for the creation of ethanol.

Algal farming stuggles to implement. While in theory it gives the best (by zillions) production Vs space, it fails elsewhere.

As yet there are only a few company experimenting with it (I remeber some New Zeeland company playing with sewage effluent) and not on an economically viable scale.

The problem is creating a continous (rather than batch) process.

Algae clogs, needs sophisticated systems to grow well etc

You could use the cellulose gum or whatever it is. I hear that some varieties are 36 times more efficient than regular gasoline.

The best engine would not rely on Biofuel, as biofuel is still organic matter that is composed of Hydrocarbons.

It is a simple fact that any and all combustion reactions feature the production of water and carbon dioxide, except for one, the burning of Hydrogen. Because there are no carbon atoms, no Carbon Dioxide is produced, and thus the only greenhouse gas escaping is water vapor ( yes, it is a greenhouse gas).

A very simple answer:

Ethanol: No
Others: depending

How would Biofuels especialy Biodiesel be an alternative fuel for Diesel locomotives and would it be feasable?

I think that Hybrid - (electricity or hydrogen with normal petrol) would be the best, most efficient and least damaging way to go.

Ethanol, is causing people to starve, if we can use algea to create biofuel which doesn't produce CO2 then i am fine with that.

Ethanol is produced in Brazil with slave labour, palm oil for biodiesel destroys rainforests both directly and indirectly.

How about cow farts, ie bio-methane? Produced everywhere where landfills exist or cattle is kept. Clean, produces a lot of energy and would go to waste otherwise. And certain plants (not the current ones but those which don't compete with food production) can certainly be used viably.

OTEC to generate electricity, the deep water is nutrient rich, so could be used to produce algae and hence fish farm. That should help offset both the land use, and the energy generation. If we can't reclaim the deserts organically, then solar farms there would seem good, but organic options would be better.

How would Biofuels especialy Biodiesel be an alternative fuel for Diesel locomotives and would it be feasable?

The Diesel engine was originally designed to use essentially early Biodiesel. And if I'm not mistaken Diesel engines, by design, can run off biodiesels, basically off the shelf.

However, any rubber gaskets or tubing that come into contact with the fuel needs to be replaced with synthetic ones as the Biodiesel dissolves rubber.

Ethanol is produced in Brazil with slave labour, palm oil for biodiesel destroys rainforests both directly and indirectly.

How about cow farts, ie bio-methane? Produced everywhere where landfills exist or cattle is kept. Clean, produces a lot of energy and would go to waste otherwise. And certain plants (not the current ones but those which don't compete with food production) can certainly be used viably.

palm oil is not for biodiesel.. it is for household goods. You will be amazed how little products you buy dont have plam oil in them.

palm oil is not for biodiesel.. it is for household goods. You will be amazed how little products you buy dont have plam oil in them.

Neste Oil uses palm oil to make biodiesel, competing with the food and household goods markets. Soon it'll be one of the biggest single consumers of palm oil with its Singapore plant

Biofuel based on edible crops is a waste and a burden upon the poor and underfed, and (currently) a net increase in CO2 output compared to the same energy content for petroleum based.
Biofuel based on otherwise trash cellulose is a better idea, but still needs technology improvement to reduce its carbon emissions footprint.

Bagass? Largass? I forget which.. the waste from ethanol production in sugarcane.

Means it is very efficient as almost all of the plant is converted into energy.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/organic_fuel.png

Read my new topic about how Biofuels help to ENHANCE Global Warming.

Algal farming stuggles to implement. While in theory it gives the best (by zillions) production Vs space, it fails elsewhere.

As yet there are only a few company experimenting with it (I remeber some New Zeeland company playing with sewage effluent) and not on an economically viable scale.

The problem is creating a continous (rather than batch) process.

Algae clogs, needs sophisticated systems to grow well etc
I read a very interesting article in TIME magazine a few months ago where they quantitatively compared the various means of producing biofuel. They too concluded that algae is by far the most promising one in very many ways, but they're struggling to implement it.

The most promising design they discussed in the article actually used CO2 from a coal driven power plant as "food" for the algae. (Algae basically need water, sunlight and CO2 to grow). They'd bubble the CO2 through water, and nearly all of it was absorbed by the algae, which then could be used as fuel. I think they said that the CO2 from the power plant would generate algae that would give out more than twice the energy of the coal plant.

I thought this sounded promising. It's as if instead of
1 tonne of coal --> 1 unit of energy
we'd get
1 tonne of coal --> 3 units of energy

, thereby significantly improving the energy balance of the coal plant. And with all the practical difficulties involved in sequestering and storing CO2, this sounds like a viable alternative!

Think I sneakily browsed that article ;)

Certainly I agree the future is in combining multiple sources, with multiple feedback loops for the greatest possible efficiency.

Wow, there's a lot of bad knowledge out there.

Biofuels - Yes, currently most biofuels take more energy to make than they produce(so do gasoline and hydrogen), and CO2 emissions are a wash, but the industry isn't even close to mature. There's a lot of promising work in progress with both algae and non-food or waste plants, just give it time before saying ZOMG ETHANOL STARVES BABIES!!!11

Electric cars - The reason we don't have electric cars is not because the oil companies killed them, it's because they simply can't meet the consumer demand of price, range, and performance. One horsepower = 746 watts, so a 200hp car needs a 150kW motor to keep up. That type of equipment is not cheap or small. We don't have the battery technology either, and even if we did, there's not enough lithium in the Earth's crust to replace every car. I once ran some numbers, and to recharge an electric car in a reasonable time with the same usable energy as filling your gas tank at the station would require a 1MW power line. This could feed several city blocks of houses, and probably wouldn't be safe for the average person to handle the power cord. Not to mention the national grid simply couldn't supply a network of charging stations like we have gas stations.

Other fossil fuel - We're getting better all the time at finding and processing fuel, we're in no danger of running out any time soon, at least several hundred years. Tar sands, ocean hydrates, deep drill oil, natural gas, etc. CO2 is a concern though, and it's not always in an easily usable form.

Biofuels can be made from any plant material, even waste material. The level of diversity in suitable supply of resources will lead to a very sustainable fuel. The biggest problems beside infrastructure comes from things like the corn lobby and people who don't understand how the whole thing works and think you have to use certain crops. The stuff can be made from leaf litter, pond scum, trash, corn stalks and a million other things.

In the long run the only alternative is steadily increasing energy efficiency. In the short run biofuels can be a portion of the mix.

Hybrid cars seem to be making a good go at combined technology resulting in high efficiency.