Quirks & Quarks

Burning plants instead of rocks sounds good, but is it really? Is the 'balance' of the air we breathe maintained this way -- the carbon and oxygen returned to the life cycle interdependence of animals and vegetables?

Well, so it might seem, but transferring food production to fuel production will serve only the Big Oil and Big Agriculture industries. We are seeing that corn will soon be bred to make as much oil - biofuel - as possible, removing it from our menu. All you have to do is read the labels in the supermarket aisles to see that corn by-products, corn oil, corn starch, corn syrup, etc., are cheap essentials in a lot of products. Food is becoming more expensive as corn becomes auto fuel, putting the lie to the old bromide favoured by Big Business that volume makes a product cheaper.

What we really need is a method of easy separation of the already excess carbon dioxide derived from coal combustion into its components, carbon (to be sequestered in old mines, oilwells, etc. as a solid) and oxygen (to be released back into the atmosphere as a gas) until stability in Global Warming is achieved again.

Well lets hope that Bio-fuel isn't the answer. Lets hope the scientist that found the radio frequency to ingnite SEA WATER can find a way to make it run as fuel. If we can start using sea water instead of Biodiesel and Coal - maybe we can use to to power cities too. Even if it was possible do you think big oil and big bio companies would let it see the light of day? That's the real question.

the problem with using Corn as a fuel, isn't that we're taking food to make fuel, it is that it takes just about the same amount of fuel to make the corn as the corn makes when rendered into fuel. Ok so as a fuel it may be less toxic, but if we're only burning fuel to make back the same fuel we just burnt, where is the benefit?

Des: A better business axiom here is supply and demand. There is a finite land area available to productively produce biomass. As demand for the product of that land area increases, so must the price of the commodity produced. When you have competing interests bidding for the same limited resourse,the price increases for all users. So if corn, sugar cane, palm oil, beets or some other commodity becomes attractive for a new use - biofuels - the price increases even for an unrelated use - food. Have a look sometime at the myriad uses for palm oil that are not fuel related. This impacts a lot of items that we pick up every week in our trips to the supermarket.

If constant growth is our economic model and greed is revered in our society, does it matter what our fuel source is?

This model with it's infinite obsession on increasing profits without having any social conscious will only create new problems where the old ones used to be.

First off I'm all for alternative fuels, My question is how much fuel does it take to make 1 litle of biofuel ? Is the cost or creating biofuel viable or are we plugging the dam with a bandaid ?

Two points:
1. Using fossil fuels to make the fertilizers and pesticides that are required to grow corn to make biofuels doesn't solve any problems. Wastes from farms and pulp mills are a good source of feed stocks but can meet only a fraction of our energy needs.

2. The previous post about sea water as an energy source is completely wrong. John Kanzius has used radio waves to cause sea water to burn but it uses more energy than it produces. This is simple thermodynamics.

The long and short of it is that immediately we need to do more energy conservation while developing new energy technologies over the next 50-100 years.

The phrase carbon neutral is very misleading and only serves to make people feel good about themselves, when it shouldn't. There is no net change in atmospheric carbon whether fossil fuel or biofuel is consumed as long as the land use remains as plant growth. The real nasty is when fossil fuel harvesting displaces, biomass growth, and we define consumption as a need instead of a luxury.

Bio-fuels should only be a bridge until the electric/hydrogen solutions can be refined.

As far as corn is concerned, it is not a good bio-mass for ethanol. Soybeans only contain on average 19% oil, also not a good source for bio-stock.

At least in your country you do have an oppertunity to grow something that is a more viable bio-stock - hemp. Hemp seeds contain on average 33% oil and the rest of the plant is a better candidate for ethanol production. It's a weed and will grow where most food-stock won't and is very hardy.

On a side note most bio-fuels aren't really "carbon neutral" if you take into account what fuel was used in the growing, transporting, and processing of the fuel, if this fuel wasn't bio-fuel, then it really isn't carbon neutral

Will we ever learn that monocultures aren't biologically viable? When we find something that works (such as corn and palm oil) we use it to the extreme...

When will we ever learn to balance things up?
Nature is all about balance but humans are all about profits and using the cheapest bioproduct to produce the cheapest biogas instead of using a variety so to make less impact to the planet.

When will we learn closed-loop cycles are the only way to go for biogas?
The use of wood production waste to produce biogas, which then can be used in vehicules that provide the wood to the processing plant is the SMART way to go. Also, biogas could be used (when burnt)to produce electricity to power the processing plant. Such closed-loop cycle would be beneficial for the environment.

Maybe, someday, we'll finally get it but until then...

I AM SO TIRED OF HUMAN NATURE-I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH "THE COMING OIL CRISIS", A DVD ABOUT OIL AND THE SUPPLY RUNNING OUT IN 20-30 YEARS. I HAVE HEARD SO MANY PEOPLE SAY THE OIL COMPANIES CAN'T BE TRUSTED, THE AUTO MAKERS CAN'T BE TRUSTED, THE GOVERNMENTS CAN'T BE TRUSTED. NOW BIG AGRICULTURE CAN'T BE TRUSTED. MOST OF THIS DISTRUST IS WELL EARNED. HOWEVER, WE HAVE ALL GOT TO START TRUSTING EACH OTHER AND DOING THE RIGHT THING SOMETIME VERY SOON OR THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO WILL BE UPON US AND OUR CHILDREN MUCH SOONER THAN WE THINK..

So the rich get to drive their cars while the poor starve.......BAD car-ma !

How much water does it take to grow enough biomass to make 1 litle of biofuel? It's been said that in the bigger picture we don't have enough water available to support growing the quantity needed for significant biofuel production.

Corn and other food staples as biofuels is a waste of land and money and only serves the BigOil, BigAg and residents of Iowa, Kansas, etc. It serves only to perpetuate an existing industry. Some researchers are on the right track, but they're buried by the 'easy solution' - turning food crops such as corn or sugar cane into more profitable fuel. Maybe we could all take time to read up on the innovative uses of oil-bearing algaes or jatropha - noxious or pest vegetation consuming hyrdocarbon wastes and producing fuel? How about that for science and innovation!

Jeff: Can you explain further about the energy required to generate the radio waves that "burn" sea water? Aren't radio waves relatively easy to produce?

How right Bob McDonald is to point out that we are literally shooting ourselves in the foot by developing biofuels to replace burning fossil fuels. The enviromental degradation will tun this planed into one big desert within 20-30 years if this happens.
Other technology must be developed, such as fuel cells, as biofuels are only, and ultimately, our way of jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Mike -- yes, palm oil is as ubiquitous as corn product in our day-to-day grocery shopping. Oil itself can be derived from all the three branches of existence, animal, vegetable, and mineral. We have relied too long on mineral sources for energy, and supplementing that with vegetable sources will only prolong the agony and "demand" will indeed result in increased prices for food oil products. Algae or grass or wood could be used, though not as 'profitably,' of course. We would continue to pay less for food, but who wants that? Not Big Oil, or Big AgChem, which with Big Business all exert a certain power over governments. Why do you think we are in Afghanistan and Iraq and constantly needle Iran?

Paul -- The Astronauts gave the rest of us, six billion or so, the realization that Earth is really small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. They also made us start to think about the whole world and not just our own block, or city, or nation. But six billion takes a long time to convert. The rest of us, the ones who see past their pocketbooks, just have to keep on preaching.

Jerusalem artichokes are another good source of ethanol. What about buttanol? Much smaller vehicles would be a better answer. It dosn't take 2 tons of metal to move usually 1 person. If you insist on burning rocks ie coal or oil why not collect biomass and store it? It is quite easy to store dry plant matter for over 100 years There is plenty of unused space. Leaves also provide good insulation. A deep layer of leaves would help keep frost in the ground far longer in the arctic. It's easy it's cheap it works. It may be our last and best chance to save the world.

I am not a scientific person, but as someone with a real concern for the environment, find something that will work, tell me about it, and I will buy it. Just save my planet for my grandchildren.
Pay attention to how it it produced, how it burns and how the biproducts are disposed of...Just let's get going instead of talking about it.
When it is ready, the market will be there. Most people believe that breathing is good and important!

I've never thought BioFuels should be considered the "green" solution for many of the reasons already stated. Nor do i believe many people think it is the best direction to go down.

I still do not think the "best" way to go about going green has been found yet. There are several interesting options out there but none are the holy grail so to say. Hybrids are getting better but still require gas and you need to plug in at times to charge the battery. Right now that electricity is most likely coming from coal or some other fossil fuel. Hydro cars are interesting but something im not sure about is, can they be run with salt water (ocean) or does it need to be fresh water, which is not available in abundance in several places around the world. The "exhaust" would be water from these cars but what side effects will that have? 600 million cars spewing out water all the time could be a very constant wet planet...maybe?

I still believe the answer has yet to be found...that's all.

Ah yes, igniting sea water. Big future in that, I'm certain. A sad commentary on the state of science education today :)

After reading this post I wasn't happy find out that so many people are again producing an alternative energy source for profit to the detriment of the environment. I only approve of using waste products in the production of biofuels, as Bob has mentioned.

There is a small movement where individuals us waste cooking oils that they convert into biodiesel for cars with a diesel engine. Also, some companies are interested in this as well. I read somewhere that McDonald's was testing a fleet of vehicles using biodiesel derived from their waste cooking oils.

The answer was found many years ago: bicycles, walking, mass transit, and transportation that doesn't rely on the combustion engine. It's about reducing and conserving; the focus is too much on finding alternatives to support limitless growth, which is a fruitless endeavour in the end. (Although, as has been mentioned, it benefits corn and wheat growers right now.)

The motor vehicle has its place for moving heavy goods or many people long distances, but the real answer is that a personal car for every household is neither necessary nor sustainable.

Driving less is partially a personal choice, in that some people have the ability to make the decision to drive far less. It may come at the cost of convenience, and it may come at the cost of higher rent (to live closer to work or school, say), though typically the cost of owning and operating a vehicle is far greater than any increase in rent would be, even for living in downtown Toronto or Edmonton. But it's a choice many people could make, if they had the will.

It's also a choice that governments need to make in urban planning. The smart choices have been known and discussed for years, yet, while a litre of gas is cheaper than a litre of bottled water, sprawl continues to expand. And biofuels, for the myriad of reasons already stated above, won't help with that, either.

All this talk about alternate fuels and none about the Greenest fuel of all - the one you dont use - we need more research and action on CONSERVATION. Get rid of oversized EGO mobils and make the ones we need much more fuel efficient.Bring back walking to community shopping stores rather than driving to the big malls and big box marts in the burbs. Using clothes lines vs dryers will save more than the mercury filled efficency lighting. Lawn covered roofs that not only save energy but also support polutant absorbing plants and are more visually pleasing than asphalt shingles. Reduction of mass consumerism of useless products that are so obsolete by the time you unwrap it. Transform our economies and social values to eco-friendly products rather than eco-destructive. Lets start respecting and emulating those that are the happy with the least rather than idolising those that have the most, the biggest, the most superflous and wastefull.

Just a note for Ryan from Ottawa. The guy who set sea-water on fire is looking for a cancer cure and found that he could use a micro-wave generator (which he could run his hands around without harm to flesh) to create a focus that would ignite salt-water and produce a hot flame. His video mentioned one use for that heat would be in the automotive industry. He is not that interested but wants to continue to experiment with micro-waves that will focus on a cancerous growth internally and heat it to death. As noted elsewhere in this blog, input in energy is much more than output in heat.

There is one crop that is the ultimately crop to use for bio-fuel, and that is hemp.

Because of its illegality, it's not even given a look-in and that's too bad. A guy in New Zealand, Blair Anderson, has studied it, and has told government that this was the best crop and they didn't want to know. You know that they said? "Can we use another crop??"

It's in the too hard basket, and this resource is wasted while the world burns itself to the ground!

Sad...

I have often thought about burning foodstuffs instead of eating them.This seems rather foolish with all the need for food in the world.
Would our time money and expertise not be better spentlooking for ways and means to produce fuel without destroying the natural flora and fauna in the process?
Just one other question. What has happened to the progress in using hydrogen?

When our economy grows so does our CO2 output. It is a great thing for our society to boast of our encomic gains but what is the true cost. When mankind finaly drives itsefl into extinction mother nature will not miss us.

Jim

Syngas may be one solution. Nearly ALL wastes can be gassified, converted to syngas (H2+CO)which with catalysts can be converted to methane, and then further converted to ethane and ethanol. Only then could the fuel needs of the world be even approached. Syngas plants can also produce electricity (the process produces heat, a lot of it).

We've been spoiled with fossil fuels, which only comes in three forms (coal, crude oil, natural gas). ALL renewable energy sources MUST be placed into the equation, because no one or two solutions will ever be enough.

I would like to see Bob do a future program on the tapping into Geothermal energy.
The initial costs to be able to bore deep enough through the mantle ,using oil mining technology, would be in the billions. The ultimate advantage would be a source of heat lasting millions or more years.
It works for Iceland, but they are lucky in having their energy so close to the surface. How about resourcing the Yellowstone Park caldera ?

The price of corn should be alot higher than it is now. Why should farmers be locked into your cheap food policies. Non farm people complain about farm subsidies (of the political announcements that are made these very little ever gets past civil service agencies and reaches the farmer) but when we can finally break even (if we din't have droughts) you complain about that. As for biofuels they are getting more efficently produced little by little, if we can eventually can produce enough biodiesel (using canola) to supply the farm equipment (and figure out how to get it not to gel up in cold temps.)it will help alot on .

Biofuels are a zero sum game, especially corn. The amount of energy put in to grow and refine the product approximates the energy provided. In the process, agricultural land is lost from food production or "marginal" land is used. Also, monoculture crops are hard on the soil and so fertilizers will be needed. As described in the article, non-agricultural land converted to biofuels can create unintended consequences. Another significan fact is that one unit of ethanol has only 80% the energy of gasoline so you need to burn more to get the same power (work). We are far better served with energy conservation, moving away from a culture of consumption and becoming more cognisant of our energy 'footprint'.

Calculations have shown that if all U.S.A. corn production from one year were converted to fuel, it would meet American fuel (gasoline) needs for one DAY. Biofuels, while being very flashy and trendy are not a solution. Conservation can save up to 20% of our current energy needs - 'free' energy - and you can still have your Corn Flakes [TM] in the morning. ;)

I've heard a vegetarian diet can really cut down on energy consumption. The ultimate is veganism. Has anyone else heard this? Is it true?

Build a flux capacitor I say. "back to the future" had it right. Use waste to produce energy. Using energy to produce energy shows just how close we are to cavemen. Wake up world. Global warming only gets worse when we eliminate rain forests. It also can only be harder on the environment to burn more fuel whether it is biofuel or otherwise.
Don't get me wrong I live in Alberta it gets cold in winter, global warming is only better for me.
"Sucking oil from the sand one drop at a time".

The long term solution must be a complete redesign of our transportation philosophy and policy. Mass transit, when done properly, saves enourmous amounts of fuel. In addition, there are plenty of mass transit systems that could use renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydro, tidal and geothermal.

So, first step, reduce our dependence on the private automobile and increase our intelligent use of mass transit.

Second step, governments need to help create more renewable energy systems, large scale ones, not just me putting up a wind turbine and a few solar panels. Geothermal energy in many areas of world is extremely viable. Tidal energy in many coastal areas is completely untapped. Solar power, whether solar-thermal or photovoltaic, is also largely untapped. Wind power, while there are few examples here and there, its full potential is staggering. In Canada we have all sorts of opportunities for interesting renewable and non-polluting energy systems. We should really spend the money on a few of those, not more coal fired power plants.

Biofuel: biodiesel is certainly an excellent canditate for renewable fuel. My brother could produce all the fuel he needs to run his nearly 1000 acre farm from just a few acres of canola. But right now, his fuel costs are only slightly more than it would cost him to produce the fuel himself. Biodiesel is a very good idea. It does NOT cost more in energy to make than it produces. The waste products, for canola, are canola meal (a fertilizer) and glycerine (a soap and a fertilizer). Ehtanol on the other hand, not such a good idea. Low energy, high cost of production, loads of technology and skill to produce. Nah, forget that one.

There are also a million and one things we could do to reduce our energy use as a nation, starting with outdoor lighting, businesses that leave their lights on 24-7, industrial waste and waste heat, inefficient cargo transportation systems (using trucks instead of trains for long haul is such a waste of resources).

Incandescent bulbs may look like energy wasters when compared to compact fluorescent, but incandescent bulbs are cheap to produce energy wise and they produce nearly the same amount of light for their entire life span. CF on the other hand is expensive to produce, energy wise, and their light output drops off by 50% over only 1/2 their useful life. That means a $10 40w bulb that will run for 3 years will only produce an 50cent 80w incandescents bulbs worth for 1.5 years, about the life expectancy of the 80w bulb. The energy diffence in production of the CF and the disposal problems mean that the CF is actually, far more energy expensive than the old incandescent. Therefore, the best idea would be to increase the efficiency of the incandescent bulb and increase our personal efficeincy in their use.

I certainly don't have the answer, no-one does yet. But, we can certainly greatly increase our efficient use of energy and increase our use of renewable sources. Perhaps oil will be with us for a long time to come yet, if we decide to use that limited resource wisely. Otherwise . . .

REDUCE

The hardest part of going green is changing our habits, not just replacing oil with bio-fuels. Ride a bike instead of a car. Take the stairs. Buy less pre-packaged food. Waste less. Live more. Be happy.

Alternative fuels are a good idea, but proper MAINTENANCE is critical, requiring a new mindset for vehicle owners. Whatever happened to NATURAL GAS, an almost ideal fuel for commuting customers and small cars? Diesels are designed for working and pulling, but biodiesel requires different "specs" on rebuild. Major rebuilders of my Ford diesels do not even use Ford specs, as they are inefficient and were "old" tech even when they were new! Like most ideas, there is always more to it once you start implementing.

Actually, biofuels are not as yet carbon neutral as has been suggested by the industry promoting their use. The most recent National Geographic has an excellent article on this subject pointing out that in fact considerable energy is consumed during the fermentation process. Thus, to generate the ethanol you still produce CO2. Even worse and almost completely overlooked in this debate is the use of fertilizers to grow the corn. These release nitrogen dioxide which is far more effficient at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Thus, at present far from having a neutral effect on greenhouse gases biofuel is not a good choice at present.

I think Chris from Edmonton is one of the few respondents making any sense out there. At the end of the day the technology pundits (i.e. those saying that this or that means of energy production is "better" for the environment than that or this means of energy production) are simply engaging in the same ol' same ol'.
It is simply time to begin enjoying life with less. One way or another we're going to get there anyway...so, why not do it on your own terms, rather than be forced to do it down the road anyways?
And on that happy note, what one significant thing can you do today to lesson your ecological foot print? Well, get out and do it! And encourage that energy-wasting neighbour of yours to do the same. It is high time that people began to walk the talk instead of waiting for solutions to come from somewhere else.
Here are a few ideas to ponder: don't leave the tap running when you shave or wash dishes (you'll save water + the energy to pump it to your house); if it's yellow, let it mellow (why flush every time you pee? It wastes 6 litres (minimum) of clean water every time you flush); don't buy stuff...yeah, that's right...don't buy stuff. Think before you buy: "Do I really need this, or am I simply indulging in a momentary desire?", and finally: engage in democracy and bug your city council relentlessly to incorporate good ideas to make your community more energy efficient.

The old story of the five wise men who also happened to be blind still resonates loud and clear. Remember how they approached an elephant together and then described the animal to each other?

The first wise man ran up against the side of the elephant. "oh, my, it's plain to see the elephant is very much like a wall!" The second man ran into a back leg. "Oho! I see this animal is just like a tree!" As the third man put his hands out and groped around, the elephant swished its tail around him and he caught it. "Well, I can tell you folks that this elephant resembles nothing so much as a rope!" At the other end of the creature the fourth blind man carefully reached out and touched the trunk. "Eww! I don't like snakes!" And the final participant ran his hands over the tusks. "A spear! So that is what an elephant is!"

And all the wise men were wrong, of course. Yet, each was partly right.

I guess that none of us can see the whole fuel problem, yet each of us can identify at least a part of it and provide a solution. But can we combine them into a coherent whole? Can we do it in time before Global Warming makes the problem moot?

I like bio diesel, especially the version made from recycled cooking oils. The smell from it gives me a hunger for fast food. Seriously though, on reflection, I believe that bio diesel is ultimately a bad thing. Corn was mentioned by someone as a source for oils to convert to fuel. In Mexico, where there is a large population who have little wealth (can we say poor?) corn has been a staple in the diet. With companies buying up corn to convert to fuel the price of corn is quickly rising making it difficult for some to afford enough to eat. There is that problem and then there is one other that I rarely hear. There are areas of the US where crops have been grown using intensive methods requiring chemical fertilizers. It's those methods which have created a demand for organic farming. The produce from the industrial farms is nutritionally deficient. Other farm land has become sterile, no longer able to support crops. My fear is that our huge demand for fuel could deplete vast acreages of land that would previously have been used for food and that food prices could rise out of site. I have a partner who is working at creating a facility that would break down cellulose of all kinds into methane for fuel and it's quite attractive. Methane still breaks down into carbon dioxide and water so carbon in the atmosphere is still a problem until we find a way to generate energy and capture the carbon.

as a grains and oilseed producer in this country, i must take exception to the comments made by bob mcdonald.Farming is a 122 year old tradition in my family and i am the fifth generation to run the family farm. In all those years of farming we have not become financially wealthy by growing food. Why? There are many reasons that we don't need to discuss here, but the main reason that it boils down to is a cheap food policy. In other words it is unethical to raise food prices to high. They must remain in the realm of affordability. So now for the first time a farmer in this country has a chance to grow and supply raw ingredients on a large scale for use in an industrial application that will compete directly with the growing of food. If you want farmers to continue to keep food on the tables of canadian house holds then it is high time they began paying an unsubsidized price for it. Remember if we were getting a fair price for our commodities in the first place i do not think you would have seen the almost overwhelming support for a biofuels industry in this country by the same people who at the present time are providing you with your cheap food. We will sell our products to the highest bidder, if that happens to be a biofuel company then so be it.FYI We don't grow a lot of corn in manitoba, but we do grow wheat which will make ethanol and we grow a lot of Canola which makes by far the best bio diesel. Both Wheat and Canola are food crops.

This is such a huge ethical dilemna. That being the use of biofuels such as ethanol from cash crops that are used to feed people vs putting that corn into ethanol. It does make one look at the prioitization and accountabilities. To where and to whom does the worlds resources go? Does burning biofuels (which is debated to be as impactful on the environment as petroleum based products) offset emissions and if so at what cost? What of agricultural waste? What of China and Europes and North America's needs for fuels and biofuels which certainly will rise over the next 25years? So many questions and biofuels adds another ethical dilemna to the ethical dilemna.

Biofuel may have its bad effects, but it's the best option that we have right now. If switchgrass is planted to produce fuel, it will quickly replace itself, keeping the extra carbon levels down. Even though I do wish that using salt as fuel will continue to be researched, using biomass for fuel needs to be developed further for now.

This certainly is an ethical question, but not in the way you think. As a producer of the raw grains and oilseeds that go into your food I know what I can get out of that market place. That is truely unethical. Most of the time it does not or barely covers the cost of production. Am i supposed to do the ethical thing and continue to grow your food for next to nothing or do i grow fuel stocks which could be much more lucrative for me. Hmm... very tough to make the decision. As i get told time and time again we apparantly dont live in an ethical world so i will sell my grain products to the highest bidder be it fuel or food. Are you ready to ante up?

Note for Des Emery: microwaves are already being used to treat cancer, though not yet as often as other electromagnetic waves like Xrays , gamma rays, and electrons (radiotherapy). Also, microwave hyperthermia is used in conjunction with radiotherapy to increase tumour kill.This is relatively old technology, though not as old as biofuels, which have been around as long as humans.