• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Scientists find method of making gasoline out of grass/trees

The problem is that even enourmous factories of this stuff will still produce a tiny percent of our fuel consumption.
 
Soon to come: Scientists disappear under mysterious circumstances; remnants of recent project notes discovered in local incinerator.
 
Sweet, so we can clearcut all the forests so that the Earth's reduction of CO2 is even less then it is currently. Additionally, we'll still be burning gas and CO2 is a byproduct of combustion. Net effect = increased CO2 build up in the atmosphere.

Let's leave this one alone and go with the guys in Texas growing algae for gas purposes. That one seems a little more reasonable to me.
 
OMGLOL they can make fuel out of corn too!!


And all the corn grown in the US would cover about 10% of our gasoline usage, and cause even greater increases in food prices that we see now, as well as deforestation and land degredation.
 
My main question is how much does it take to make a gallon of gas in this manner? 1, 2, 3 trees? even if they grow them just for this and don't cut down existing trees, the production would have to be enormous. Still better than ethanol from corn though I bet.
 
It's at least a renewable resource. Sad that it would only provide a fraction of the fuel needed to keep the cars moving in this country.
 
Originally posted by: Red
It's at least a renewable resource. Sad that it would only provide a fraction of the fuel needed to keep the cars moving in this country.
Click to expand...

No, what's sad is that people (greenies) actually think that bio-diesel is the answer. Electric infrastucture + nuclear and solar FTW.
 
This is no differant from corn based biofuels or anything else.

Already people are raving abot deforestation, and suddnely when we find way to turn trees into Gas, its Praised? Turning trees into fuel would slow down the Earths ability to cycle Co2, and make the problem worse.

They could cut down the entire Amazon, and probably not have enough fuel to last one day in America
 
Originally posted by: tenshodo13
This is no differant from corn based biofuels or anything else.

Already people are raving abot deforestation, and suddnely when we find way to turn trees into Gas, its Praised? Turning trees into fuel would slow down the Earths ability to cycle Co2, and make the problem worse.

They could cut down the entire Amazon, and probably not have enough fuel to last one day in America
Click to expand...

Greenies aren't capable of piecing together a logical train of thought.
 
Originally posted by: bignateyk
No, what's sad is that people (greenies) actually think that bio-diesel is the answer. Electric infrastucture + nuclear and solar FTW.
Click to expand...
One of my professors had a mini-rant in class the other day. Ms. Clinton was in town, saying how she'd "Wake up every morning thinking about Erie, PA,":roll: and how she'd get wind turbines installed here. This professor also said though that they keep trying to get wind turbines installed here, but it's always far-left liberals who prevent them from going up, because they will kill birds - birds tend to fly where the wind is stronger, as it saves energy. Ok, fine, their solution is to just move the turbines out of the flight paths, which of course puts them where there is very little wind. Result: no clean energy power plants because of the environmental extremists.

Environmental realists would realize that producing electricity from other, dirtier methods
will also harm wildlife. And hell, I'm sure plenty of these extremists drive cars, and I'm sure they've all cause at least one roadkill in their lives.
Extremism is generally a bad thing.

Nuclear (Fission for now, fusion for the future.) + solar + wind + tidal + hydroelectric FTW. 🙂
 
People, please.
1) it's not new.
2) corn fuel as it is now uses only the cob (actually just part of it, the kernels), not the whole plant.
3) something called switchgrass which is being played with now nets "whole plant ethanols" about four or five times as dense per acre and unit of work (and thus amount of fuel burnt to make it). Basically, we can switch some corn to this and still have a surplus of food AND fuel.
go google up switchgrass ethanol and you will see this is all true.

My opinion on the energy needs and what *should* be done are thus:
1) Convert electrical plants to the new version of photocells, which are a thin grey film and IIRC 80% effective at capturing energy, and use a few teaspoons of material per square meter as opposed to ten (or was it twenty) times that for conventional photovoltaics - also accelerate wind and (sea)water power plant production.
2) Work on fuel cell tech, that can help if a good means of storing the hydrogen is found... hydrogen isn't more flammable then gasoline, just harder to store.
3) somehow, someway either get terrestrial fusion working, find a way to harvest fusion energy directly from the sun, or find a way to harness matter/antimatter reactions (yes that stuff is real, too) or perhaps, though this is a longshot, find a way to harness the energy of gravity waves.

~edit~ small correction
 
Or, you know, we could pour money into finding ways of using all this totally free and clean energy that bombards the planet everyday from the sun.
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: bignateyk
No, what's sad is that people (greenies) actually think that bio-diesel is the answer. Electric infrastucture + nuclear and solar FTW.
Click to expand...
One of my professors had a mini-rant in class the other day. Ms. Clinton was in town, saying how she'd "Wake up every morning thinking about Erie, PA,":roll: and how she'd get wind turbines installed here. This professor also said though that they keep trying to get wind turbines installed here, but it's always far-left liberals who prevent them from going up, because they will kill birds - birds tend to fly where the wind is stronger, as it saves energy. Ok, fine, their solution is to just move the turbines out of the flight paths, which of course puts them where there is very little wind. Result: no clean energy power plants because of the environmental extremists.

Environmental realists would realize that producing electricity from other, dirtier methods
will also harm wildlife. And hell, I'm sure plenty of these extremists drive cars, and I'm sure they've all cause at least one roadkill in their lives.
Extremism is generally a bad thing.

Nuclear (Fission for now, fusion for the future.) + solar + wind + tidal + hydroelectric FTW. 🙂
Click to expand...

I just have my bulk sized alternator producing 1.21 jiggawatts and sell the surplus back to the power company. I actually am powering my neighborhood on garbage that the alternator uses.
 
I wonder how long it'll be until they give up on all of this shit and just use nuclear energy and electric power for everything. 20 years?
 
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
I just have my bulk sized alternator producing 1.21 jiggawatts and sell the surplus back to the power company. I actually am powering my neighborhood on garbage that the alternator uses.
Click to expand...
Ironically it's SOP (standard operating practice) for landfills to capture and use the methane that comes off rotting garbage inside their landfills to power their operations, and almost always they have a surplus they sell to the power company... so yes, electricity can and does come from garbage.
 
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Or, you know, we could pour money into finding ways of using all this totally free and clean energy that bombards the planet everyday from the sun.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
I see a lot of you aren't bothering to click the link and see that it doesn't have to be trees, but can indeed be switchgrass.
 
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I see a lot of you aren't bothering to click the link and see that it doesn't have to be trees, but can indeed be switchgrass.
Click to expand...

Or any source of cellulose for that matter...

There is a lot of misunderstanding about biofuels because people don't read carefully. Most people think all Ethanol is terrible because a majority of it is currently produced from corn (which was in great surplus until recently). Cellulosic biofuels can utilize a far larger number of potential feedstocks that don't encroach on food production or further harm the environment.
 
I don't see how this could help us whatsoever. The oil isn't running out any time in the near future, there are still trillions of barrels underground as well as trillions more in oil sands. Why would we use the one thing that can counteract CO2 production to produce more of the same fuels?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top