  D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 229 Registered: 12-2007 |
http://www.treehugger.com/file s/2008/02/biodiesel_even.php With this information and study...maybe the CEOs at Ford and GM should take notice...ok, maybe not so much GM, as they already do more than Ford | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 5179 Registered: 02-2007 |
they do? doubtful | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 231 Registered: 12-2007 |
How many Flex Fuel vehicles does Ford have on the market? How many electric vehicles in pre-production phase? Aside from the hydrogen fleet of Foci...what does Ford do besides a Hybrid Escape? (Message edited by D_mcc on February 15, 2008) | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1894 Registered: 07-2004 |
This is all bogus. It takes more energy to make biofuels than they produce when burned. A silly way to rationalize our unsustainable consumption culture. Worse still, you're taking land that could produce healthful FOOD and using it to feed some fat idiot's SUV. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1103 Registered: 12-2006 |
It takes more energy to make any kind of fuel whatsoever than it produces when burned. Isn't that the first law of conservation of energy? I think the best way out of oil dependency is not a single method of attack but a combination attack. Biofuel is real and exists; my wife drives a school bus for a large suburban school system and their entire bus fleet runs on nothing but biodiesel since fall 2006. So what we need is: more transit, more fuel efficient cars, more use of solar and wind power, every known means of generating electricity including coal (done more cleanly) and nuclear (I already know the waste-disposal problem; too bad; solve it), less pointless driving and more turning off lights when you're not in a room and using fluorescent lights, flex work hours, more telecommuting and, yes, biofuel. 'nerd is right that if biofuel is your entire solution you've moved the disaster from one realm to another. But if it's part of a combination of attacks, we will be better off as a society IMVHO. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 5118 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: You can make it from grasses that grow in conditions where food crops can't. I agree with Prof. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1896 Registered: 07-2004 |
Always with the nuanced analysis. Yes, Prof, you're right. But, over the years, I've noticed that smart people draw up these combination attack plans that make decent sense, then the powerful elite choose what they want to implement from the plan a la carte. What you end up with is often a disaster.  | ||
Detroitpetanque Member Username: Detroitpetanque Post Number: 53 Registered: 09-2006 |
Hey Hey Hey Kids, no need to argue, The scientists behind Bio-Fuel have thought of everything. It's both Fuel for your car, and it tastes great Too! It's a Floor-Wax AND a Dessert Topping! | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 5120 Registered: 10-2003 |
 | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1897 Registered: 07-2004 |
Thanks for the always-welcome levity.  | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 573 Registered: 12-2006 |
Actually, look for bio fuels like ethanol to move away from corn based production and into things that will produce a better ratio of energy output compared to input. In fact, during the auto show, GM announced it was partnering with an Illinois based firm that has developed a way to produce ethanol from switchgrass, a fast growing plant that requires far less energy to produce a crop than corn. They claim that for every one unit of input energy they use to make the ethanol in this method they will produce enough ethanol to provide 7.7 units of energy. Not only is this a far better ratio than that of corn-based ethanol, it also would lower food prices since corn would no longer be used to produce ethanol. During their press release, they announced plans to build an ethanol plant capable of producing 100 million gallons of ethanol a year by 2010. Ethanol has a future, it is just a matter of refining the input materials and the process to achieve the most sustainable method. | ||
Detroitpetanque Member Username: Detroitpetanque Post Number: 54 Registered: 09-2006 |
I wish scientists could find a way to convert potholes into fuel. Detroit would be a top provider! | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1901 Registered: 07-2004 |
> Ethanol has a future, it is just a matter of refining the input materials and the process to achieve the most sustainable method. What a perversion of the word "sustainable." | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 575 Registered: 12-2006 |
nerd, How so? If you are producing your energy from a renewable resource in a way that will allow you a perpetual supply of energy isn't that the very definition of sustainability? | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 234 Registered: 12-2007 |
Jimbo...sounds like pinko commie hippy talk to me... | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1903 Registered: 07-2004 |
Sustainability implies that the waste loop leads back into the creation loop. How will carbon-monoxide help produce switchgrass? | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 236 Registered: 12-2007 |
How about clean coal? Or better yet, nuclear power??? | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 576 Registered: 12-2006 |
Nerd, you are aware that the emissions from ethanol are MUCH cleaner than fossil fuels. Also, in time what do you think will be running the engines of the harvesting machines used to cultivate the switchgrass? ETHANOL! So yes, it will loop back. Until you can invent your perpetual motion car engine, I guess us people in the real world will have to settle for ethanol. | ||
Ffdfd Member Username: Ffdfd Post Number: 258 Registered: 09-2006 |
This item was posted in the Freakonomics blog a couple days ago. quote: http://freakonomics.blogs.nyti mes.com/2008/02/13/global-warm ing-and-the-minefield-of-unint ended-consequences/ | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1905 Registered: 07-2004 |
No. Sustainable practices are few. Subsistence farming, for instance, is a sustainable practice. You have to have zero waste in order for it to be truly sustainable. It's a finite planet, and if any system produces an iota of waste, it's not rally sustainable, in the purest sense of the word. Your example of a ethanol-powered harvester is facile. You actually have to find a way to use the carbon-monoxide to feed the switchgrass. That, of course is impossible. And that's why I think you're perverting the term "sustainable." But I gather you're more interested in "sustainability" as a sort of feel-good marketing term than an actual descriptor of processes. Have fun trying to paint car-culture green. But don't be shocked when people tell you you're being naive. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 5181 Registered: 02-2007 |
Ford has spent more time with the hydrogen than with hybrids, has fleets of clean D cars in Europe, has many PZEV cars (that means the amount of emissions is roughly = the amount of emissions that would be required for equivalent electrical power. The Escape has a much higher percentage increase in mileage than any of GMs cars. On top of that, those non-petro foam seats? a ford development | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 577 Registered: 12-2006 |
Detroitnerd, I'm not looking for a feel good solution. I'm talking about real change. So far all you've done is knock the proposals of of others. Besides making everyone a third world country scraping by on subsistance farming, please tell me what your solution is. | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 238 Registered: 12-2007 |
RB...and what have they implemented in the worlds largest polution producing nation??? | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1906 Registered: 07-2004 |
Clarifying the terms is an excellent place to begin. Unless we're clear about what the words we're using mean, we'll never get anywhere. As for subsistence farming, that feeds more than half the people in the world. That means that, when it comes to sustainability, the third world, and many of their aboriginal residents, have more to teach us than we have to teach them. If you're truly interested, that is the thesis of a fascinating book: In the Absence of the Sacred, by Jerry Mander. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 578 Registered: 12-2006 |
D_mcc, As of this year, we are no longer the largest pollution producing nation. China has passed us. We are, however, still the largest polluters per capita. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 1017 Registered: 01-2005 |
P.T. Barnum was right. He was just off by a factor of about 1000. Many of them are folks who believe that a website with the name "Treehugger" can't be wrong. (Rather demeaning name to those actually knowledgable and concerned with the environment, don't you think?) Corn based ethanol is the biggest boondoggle in our energy history. It's a typical corn belt handout gone horribly wrong. Thanks to A.D.M. and Cargill, their lobbyists (with their million dollar congressional bribes) and the farm belt lobby for picking your pockets way beyond even their wildest expectations. Unless Congress gets wise it's going to cost us over $500 billion over the next 4 or 5 years. (We need that dough to keep the war going in Iraq.) Not only is ethanol very bad business (there's a $.70/gal. subsidy as you all know, plus may other hidden costs), it's bad for the environment. SCIENCE magazine highlighted recent studies showing that ethanol and other biofuels produce more greenhouse emissions than fossil fuels when all their production inputs are accounted for. (See Jan. 4, '08 issue, "Environmenal Issues - How Green Are Biofuels?") Those studies show that replacing fossil fuels with corn-based ethanol will DOUBLE greenhouse gas emissions over the next 30 years. Switchgrass would increase emissions by 50%. Growing "fuel plants" frequently replace the growing of vegetation that actually consumes harmful greenhouse gases. SCIENCE magazine is a leading scientific journal. It's articles are widely quoted by the world press. It's as respected as Scientific American magazine but a bit more readable. Go to http.//www.sciencemag.org/index.dtl. Type "ethanol" in the "search" box and you'll be directed to 5215 references/articles going back to 1980. Also, check out http.//www.sciencemag.org/magazine.dt l. Wise up treehuggers. (Message edited by 3rdworldcity on February 15, 2008) | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1107 Registered: 12-2006 |
OK, 3rd, I'll bite. What's your alternative? Remember, oil is finite. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 471 Registered: 06-2007 |
"It takes more energy to make any kind of fuel whatsoever than it produces when burned. Isn't that the first law of conservation of energy?" I'm not a scientist but aren't most renewable energy alternatives premised on harnessing energy that is inherently created as a result of ongoing functions of nature? For instance, solar power, wind power, tidal power, geothermal heating, etc? I'd personally question the Nature Conservancy studies a bit more in-depth because of their goals of reducing land usage for agricultural purposes. Likewise, Greenpeace recently came out against a series of carbon-dioxide "scrubbers" that are proposed for the manufacturing of menthanol because the would use up too much land. However, as pointed out in the analysis of the position, Greenpeace does support the use of wind turbines which technically would use an equivalent amount of land. Blind politics seems be the biggest hurdle for most new energy sources. The Royal Society presents the problems in a much more balanced manner with a less agenda driven slant. http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=28632 (Message edited by Umcs on February 16, 2008) | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5203 Registered: 10-2004 |
Scott: Be advised that you are merely one person among the paltry 2% of the tri-county area that uses mass transit. And face it, you don't have it too bad because you can take advantage of some of the shortest headways in the entire DDOT system. Supporters like you say that metro Detroit's population density is high enough to support shorter headways and such. True. But the vast majority (98%) of the 4.5 million haven't, don't, and won't use buses to get to work or shopping. Rapid transit won't drive this community and doing so at this late stage would be a major bump toward bankrupting the city and some suburbs. It won't drive anything but a small amount of nearby commerce and help, temporarily, the construction industry that will build the system. Metro Detroit needs the importation of sustainable funds, and having stable and profitable industries do that. What's left here will dissipate away until there's not a critical mass to keep the area afloat. We probably slipped under that critical mass a decade ago. So, we are just living off what's around and ourselves for the rest. Detroit and some appendage burbs have a terminal cancer of sorts. I needn't run the litany of obvious symptoms and causes. You and I and most with critical attitudes know most or all of them. Still, you persist in having these transit expenditures. Might your field of academia be somewhat supportive of public-sector spending (socialism, etc.), as is almost all of academia? | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 3505 Registered: 06-2004 |
"Wise up treehuggers." You own a small oil company in Texas. That's all the wisdom needed with regard to your posts. |
