So you think biodiesel is a good idea?

[dor]

The following link gives an alternative view of the benefit of biodiesel.

 

I had already had doubts about Bush's view that biodiesel will mean that the US voters won't have to give up their gas-guzzlers, as it would probably mean planting soya across the whole of Brazil, but this is also bad news.

 

My son recently spent a year in Malaysia as an ecologist, and he was pretty appalled by how palm oil plantations was wrecking everything. Now this.......

 

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06...an-fossil-fuel/

Edited December 14, 2005 by dor

[Supermalc]

"The idea that we can simply replace this fossil legacy – and the extraordinary power densities it gives us – with ambient energy is the stuff of science fiction. There is simply no substitute for cutting back."

 

Sadly this is the bottom line. No need to go back to the horse and cart/ox and plough, but until people stop wasting their time travelling to 'work' which often entails no more than 'playing' with computers, to get money to replace the car, to travel to work.....nothing will change.

[CanalWalker]

Has anyone suggested using less fuel and energy?

[Supermalc]

Has anyone suggested using less fuel and energy?

 

Yes.....me But as usual no one listens

[John Orentas]

I have always been a bit suspicious of the idea that as long as we burn fossil fuel before it has been fossilised everything will be OK.

 

I'm equally suspicious of very long campaigning web-sites, I can hear the sound of axes being ground.

[Carrie]

Thanks for that link, Dor - George Monbiot is a real hero of mine. It's an uncomfortable truth that growing for palm oil is causing huge destruction. (So is mining uranium, drilling for oil, etc.). The only good point it has is that it causes 'significantly lower C02 emissions' than normal diesel. I don't believe rapeseed production has the same impact, as it can be grown in the UK and doesn't therefore require the clearing of rainforests. The problem comes when we want something grown cheaply abroad for our own consumption.

 

But I agree that the only answer is to cut right back. There are enough resources (including oil, coal and gas) if it was properly shared.

[Guest]

There are no easy answers. The simple truth is that if we are to produce energy we will pollute. Unless some new technology is discovered we are stuck with it. Slightly off topic but I read a book today which claimed that the effect of lead in petrol was known in the 1920's - how long did it take to make petrol unleaded? It's down to good old profit you see!

[John Orentas]

There are no easy answers. The simple truth is that if we are to produce energy we will pollute.

 

I'm not sure about that. Nuclear power is the well known and achievable means of producing energy we need for the medium term without adding to our global problems by one jot and without producing a pop bottle-full of C02. It has one very solvable obstacle, that of the disposal of small amounts of waste materials. That problem is well within the wit of the human race to solve.

 

Forget your silly little windmills, solar panels and tidal machines, what we need is big power stations, lots and lots of them and pretty quickly, if we are not going to burn fuel to drive them the only alternative for now is nuclear fission.

 

Forget this simple lifestyle rubbish the genie is now out of the bottle, there is no going back, people are not going to give up their cars, their foreign holidays or the power delivered into their houses the sooner everyone takes that on board and sees the reality of the situation the sooner we can get down to building a 21st century solution to a 21st century problem.

Edited December 14, 2005 by John Orentas

[Supermalc]

 

Forget this simple lifestyle rubbish the genie is now out of the bottle, there is no going back, people are not going to give up their cars, their foreign holidays or the power delivered into their houses.

 

Until something drastic happens. Remember a year or two ago when people only queued for petrol. The country ground to a halt.

 

A year ago, even after Asia suffered, did you really think a major US city would be totally destroyed by the weather?

 

As you say, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle, and only total destruction will stop it. It may not be in mine (or your) lifetime, but it surely is not too far away.

 

Only today, we have discovered man was here 200,000 years earlier than previously thought. Our lifetime is mearely a flicker of an eye lid in the scale of time.

[Carrie]

I'm not sure about that. Nuclear power is the well known and achievable means of producing energy we need for the medium term without adding to our global problems by one jot and without producing a pop bottle-full of C02.

 

Oh dear (the wedding's off). That is just plain wrong, John!

 

As well as the contamination that mining uranium brings (see poisened rivers in India in particular, localised sicknesses the authorities hush up, where people are too poor to sue) - not to us of course - oh no! , there is also the massive problem of storing the waste. I see the Australian government wants to develop their nuclear 'disposal' business, taking the waste of other countries,to bury in the vast plains they have called 'uninhabited', regardless of the fact that they are lived on by aboriginals. But it won't hurt us of course! Trouble is, we all share the world and a nuclear disaster in one country is a disaster for all. How dare we say that we can have nuclear, but other countries cannot - then inflict any terrible disaster we may have upon them - as fallout?!

 

The only reason the government is re-sowing the seeds of the nuclear idea is because the Trident missiles need renewing now. Nuclear electricity is just going to be the handy, vote-winning by-product of nuclear arms manufacturing (we are after all the worlds 2nd biggest exporter of arms - while pretending to try and 'make poverty history'!)

This is the real reason why the government has refused to invest in alternative energy production. They knew they were going to push this, as soon as the Iraq furore died down. I was at Aldermaston Nuclear Centre in Feb 2004 where there was an upsurge in building new facilities and importing new technologies from the States - it was clear this was on the agenda.

 

Article from the Independent - in case you still think nuclear is safe and non-polluting.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0131-03.htm

[CanalWalker]

the idea that as long as we burn fossil fuel before it has been fossilised everything will be OK.

 

if a fuel isnt a fossil its not a fossil fuel!!! Burning fossil fuels adds CO2 tot he system that was locke dinthe ground. Burning plants like willows or oil seeds doesnt add to the CO2 because plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere when they grow.

the problem with growing crops for fuel is the space you need to grow them. Whether they woudl be grown in Third World countries or not depends on the subsidies in the richest nations.

[Supermalc]

I hate to add fuel to the flames (sorreee....couldn't resist, grin) but did anyone see the program about the chap who discovered the hydrogen engine??? Year or two ago now, and tucked away late at night in a minor channel.

 

Apparently in the oil crisis in the early 70s, which I remember because petrol went from 36pence a gallon to £1.53 in a year (thats like going from £4 to £20odd), a chap in America thought it was ridiculous to be held to ransom by oil countries, so started investigating, and experimenting. All this time later he's still trying, as with the world's currency being oil, not gold, it has been sat on. He's had billions, and death threats offered, but resisted, for the good of the planet.

 

So the question remains. Why has this not been proved, or disproved as the case may be?

Edited December 15, 2005 by Supermalc

[Speedwell]

The hydrogen engine seems a great idea - no CO2 emissions but hydrogen is not easy to come by. I imagine the source would have to be from the electrolysis of water. This would be great as it would also add oxygen to the atmosphere. The trouble is that it would need vast quantities of electricity to do the electrolysis. If we lived in a hot country, we could probably get it from solar energy but here it could only come from power stations. Here, I agree with John, nuclear is the only way ahead. I also agree with Carrie - people should not have to suffer from the radiation problems. These things have to be investigated and solutions found. It won't happen overnight and it will be expensive, but if we don't start, it will never be sorted out.

Compare coal mining - years ago, coal was dug out using a pick axe with a candle for illumination. Now it's nearly all automated.

Arthur

[Supermalc]

The problem is that to get hydrogen by electrolysis of water requires MORE energy than you take out. This gentleman appeared to have discovered a way of obtaining more hydrogen for less input. It was all very secretive of course.

 

In the small experiment shown, the usual small jar of water emits only a slight trickle of hydrogen bubbles......however this one emitted many many times more.

 

I also forgot to mention, engines that could 'run on water' were reportedly about to be made, in and around this time. Nothing in the news or media, but all these years later, is this what was being mentioned?

[CanalWalker]

how about inventing a system of channels or navigable rivers throughout the country which could be used to transport cargoes on barges?

[Superflid]

Compare coal mining - years ago, coal was dug out using a pick axe with a candle for illumination. Now it's nearly all automated.

Arthur

 

I've done a bit of that myself, there's a lot of machinery involved but very little of it is "automated".

 

Last year China produced 35% of the world's coal but recorded more than 6,000 deaths in mining accidents - 80% of the world's total. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1415289,00.html)

 

That makes the world figures about 7,500 per year. Over 20 miners per day die......

Edited December 15, 2005 by Superflid

[Breals]

Biodiesel? There is another way...

[Denis R]

The hydrogen engine referred to was almost certainly the fuel cell, which uses hydrogen and oxgen in the cell to produce electricity. The oxygen comes from air and hydrogen from a pressurised tank. Recent developements have concentrated around reformer design so that LPG or unleaded petrol can be used to generate the hydrogen. However, the challenge for vehicle designers is the packaging density - getting it down to a size and weight that means your car can still carry passengers. The industry reluctance for going the pure hydrogen route is the infrastructure investment in a means to dispense liquid hydrogen without everybody blowing themselves up....

[Speedwell]

I've done a bit of that myself, there's a lot of machinery involved but very little of it is "automated".

Last year China produced 35% of the world's coal but recorded more than 6,000 deaths in mining accidents - 80% of the world's total. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1415289,00.html)

That makes the world figures about 7,500 per year. Over 20 miners per day die......

I've little doubt that you're right. I deliberately left out the bit about the cost of coal from our (relatively) safe mines, ignoring the political agenda, means that we now buy coal from cheaper producers abroad. One more problem that needs to be sorted out for nuclear.

The essence of my argument is that, if we are going to make progress, we have got to get started. The longer the government drags its heels, the worse the situation must get.

Arthur

[Supermalc]

No, I'm fairly sure it wasn't the fuel cell, which I've now read about. This is because the hydrogen is introduced, as either a liquid or a gas.

 

This was a means of producing the hydrogen, for use as fuel, without the requirements of lots of energy, sourced from other fuels.

[dor]

Magic hydrogen engines, engines that run on water. Inventors allegedly offered billions by the oil companies.

 

All right up there with cold fusion and all the other headline-grabbing ideas with no substance, hyped up by ignorant media to fool the gullible public.

 

Call me an old cynic, but I'm still waiting for this nuclear-generated electricity that's going to be too cheap to be worth metering.

[John Orentas]

Magic hydrogen engines, engines that run on water. Inventors allegedly offered billions by the oil companies.

 

All right up there with cold fusion and all the other headline-grabbing ideas with no substance, hyped up by ignorant media to fool the gullible public.

 

Call me an old cynic, but I'm still waiting for this nuclear-generated electricity that's going to be too cheap to be worth metering.

 

 

Don't forget the fuel pill, simply fill up your petrol tank with water and drop in a couple of the special pills. It works, I saw it demonstrated on TV.

[Supermalc]

Don't forget the fuel pill, simply fill up your petrol tank with water and drop in a couple of the special pills. It works, I saw it demonstrated on TV.

 

Why aren't you using it then?

[Superflid]

I've little doubt that you're right. I deliberately left out the bit about the cost of coal from our (relatively) safe mines, ignoring the political agenda, means that we now buy coal from cheaper producers abroad. One more problem that needs to be sorted out for nuclear.

The essence of my argument is that, if we are going to make progress, we have got to get started. The longer the government drags its heels, the worse the situation must get.

Arthur

 

With you all the way on nuclear. The anti-nuclear arguments seem to leave out a lot of the drawbacks to the alternatives. Money (much more!) should have been spent on nuclear fusion 20 years or more ago.

[Guest]

Magic hydrogen engines, engines that run on water. Inventors allegedly offered billions by the oil companies.

 

All right up there with cold fusion and all the other headline-grabbing ideas with no substance, hyped up by ignorant media to fool the gullible public.

 

Call me an old cynic, but I'm still waiting for this nuclear-generated electricity that's going to be too cheap to be worth metering.

 

Yep that famous Queen's speech wasn't it? Free fuel for all! We should all be driving battery powered cars and boats now, with BW charging points (free of course) along the waters edge.

Edited December 17, 2005 by Guest