Reply
Thu 13 Jul, 2006 01:55 pm
Including the nuclear option.
At the moment, I am interested in various biofuel possibilities, and the technologies that would be required. How much acreage would be required to make it worthwhile? Downside on other uses of the land?
Solar energy.
Wind.
http://news.com.com/2102-11389_3-6092888.html?tag=st.util.print
Corn, soybeans, switch grass and other high cellulose plant forms.
Sumac, I'm not at all sure ethanol really reduces co2 emissions, taken over all. The fermentation process involved produces co2, and that's before it's burned as a fuel. I have heard general comments involving some enzyme that is supposed to increase efficiency, but have no idea whether the same volume of gas is produced.
In any case, I wonder if corn and sugar cane were really the best route to have persued. It seems possible that turnips and sugar beets might give a better alcohol yield to acre than either of the others, though I've seen no studies.
Sugar cane may be fine for Brazil, which can grow it in abundance, but we don't have the climate for it. As a matter of fact, I have read that they use almost no petroleum fuel product, but only ethanol-type stuff from sugar cane grown within their own borders. No energy dependence. That is very attractive.
High cellulose content plants, grown on arid, poor (for agricultural purposes), appears to have a greater yield, according to one of the articles I cited, and doesn't require fertilization.
Just like England is looking at a type of grass or plant that grows on moors, where not much else will grow.
I think it is obvious that we should not be putting our hats in any one basket, but that many different sources should be used, at least for now.