[Dizzle]

Originally Posted by chriskiss

The high performance fuels are not obtained with a net energy gain. They burn more rapidly but there is no advantage to switching to methanol.

Hemp is not the answer. It takes energy to harvest (like corn, switchgrass and all other crops). Now, you run into the azeotrope problem that I keep preaching about and people keep ignoring. It's it a fundamental chemical property of water/ethanol mixtures being turned into fuel.

It won't work. Ethanol simply isn't the answer and will never be unless you're cracking it for the hydrogen and even then, there are more efficient ways of obtaining hydrogen.

lol, back to reality hippies

[chardog]

the simplest solution is to use less. Get a smaller car, ride the bicycle more often, and walk more often.

[Mithra]

Originally Posted by chardog

the simplest solution is to use less. Get a smaller car, ride the bicycle more often, and walk more often.

Not a realistic solution, energy demands are going to continue to skyrocket with the increase in industrialized nations and global population.

[LavrentiBeria]

Water is an even bigger problem than energy, especially in the West.

The only way to really solve both problems is to build several big ass nuclear power plants and use the generated electricity to desalt seawater on a big scale. Biofuels and solar energy are not going to cut it. We need a lot of electricity to deal with the water crisis.

[kdx200]

Originally Posted by NaglfarCommando

And we're still on Gasoline why?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Gandhi]

the fucking billion dollar oil companies wont let it happen...if the oil companies were smart they would invest money into the technology to become more effecient and they could ease the transition but unfortunetly jesus is coming soon and god would never let planet earth die...at least not before the rapture

LOL fist non Zionist related post i have read from you and its a farce.

That is right the oil companies are making bad investments decision because they are all right wing evangelicals waiting for rapture.

[chardog]

Originally Posted by Mithra

Not a realistic solution, energy demands are going to continue to skyrocket with the increase in industrialized nations and global population.

Sure it's realistic. It's the most obvious and overlooked solution. Imagine if all the highschool students road their bikes to school instead of driving or having parents drive them to school. That alone would take away tons of cars on the road. I've been walking to college for some time already. it's good exercise and a realistic solution.

There is little to no money made with this type of solution so it's hardly pushed.

People can get a job closer to home or move closer to their jobs. It's a very realistic solution, but since there is no money involved... People wont care.

[Stringer Bell]

Originally Posted by chardog

Sure it's realistic. It's the most obvious and overlooked solution. Imagine if all the highschool students road their bikes to school instead of driving or having parents drive them to school. That alone would take away tons of cars on the road. I've been walking to college for some time already. it's good exercise and a realistic solution.

There is little to no money made with this type of solution so it's hardly pushed.

People can get a job closer to home or move closer to their jobs. It's a very realistic solution, but since there is no money involved... People wont care.

Actually what you're doing is decreasing productivity, because in order for any significant gas to be saved the people riding instead of driving would have to be coming from far distances. If someone who lives 5 blocks away is now biking instead of driving, your not saving any significant amount of gas on a national scale

People live far from work because they can't afford to live close to work, or there are special circumstances (schools for kids, safer neighborhood, etc.). Do you think people live far from work because they enjoy the commute?

[JerkWeed]

Originally Posted by chriskiss

The high performance fuels are not obtained with a net energy gain. They burn more rapidly but there is no advantage to switching to methanol.

Hemp is not the answer. It takes energy to harvest (like corn, switchgrass and all other crops). Now, you run into the azeotrope problem that I keep preaching about and people keep ignoring. It's it a fundamental chemical property of water/ethanol mixtures being turned into fuel.

It won't work. Ethanol simply isn't the answer and will never be unless you're cracking it for the hydrogen and even then, there are more efficient ways of obtaining hydrogen.

Why is it almost never mentioned that it also takes considerable energy to extract, transport, and refine fossil fuels? The net energy gain argument is very important but "ramp up" is a key part of that equation. Namely, it takes time (and money) to build a matching infrastructure.

But I agree that ethanol is just a teaser right now. If we can ever achieve efficient cellulosic ethanol production, and there are scientists who believe this may happen in 10-15 years, myscanthus and switchgrass could potentially become viable energy sources. Corn is completely impossible and I suspect that is exactly why it is getting so much industry backing.

Diesel engines offer a more immediate method to harness bio fuels.

Hemp is not the most efficient source of diesel oil but somewhat like corn it has a devoted following.

Personally I think algae is interesting.

[quietwalker]

Originally Posted by chriskiss

The high performance fuels are not obtained with a net energy gain. They burn more rapidly but there is no advantage to switching to methanol.

Hemp is not the answer. It takes energy to harvest (like corn, switchgrass and all other crops). Now, you run into the azeotrope problem that I keep preaching about and people keep ignoring. It's it a fundamental chemical property of water/ethanol mixtures being turned into fuel.

It won't work. Ethanol simply isn't the answer and will never be unless you're cracking it for the hydrogen and even then, there are more efficient ways of obtaining hydrogen.

Bingo. The energy costs to manufacture it would offset the benefits for now anyways.