Which alternative fuels do you support?

  • Thread starter Mk
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Support
In summary: Bio is the scariest I think too :eek:Doesn't France get 80% of it's electricity from nuclear and export more of it?What percent of their total energy usage comes from nuclear, including petro energy?QED
  • #36
Azael said:
Fission. Fortunaly India and China doesn't seem to give a rats ass about anti nuclear fanatics. I hope China build every one of the 300 reactors they are aiming to build before 2050.
One of my friends who lives in China said his house was heated during winter by water pipes coming from the nuclear reactor I think.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization" [Broken]

It solves 2 problems simultaneously.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
russ_watters said:
Nuclear power in a country like the US is not a proliferation issue - we already have nuclear weapons. :rolleyes:

Disagree that you can dismiss that as a concern. The nuke power industry extends beyond US borders, and ramping it up means a big increase in world wide U mining along with waste storage and tracking problems.

The public is starting to wise-up to the fact that they were swindled by radical environmentalists into believing the anti-nuclear lies.
Agree that the plant operation propaganda was a swindle and that pebble bed technology., for instance, makes operation and non-problem. Its the digging up the fuel and doing away w/ the waste that has no good answers in sight, IMO.
 
  • #39
mheslep said:
Disagree that you can dismiss that as a concern. The nuke power industry extends beyond US borders, and ramping it up means a big increase in world wide U mining along with waste storage and tracking problems.

Agree that the plant operation propaganda was a swindle and that pebble bed technology., for instance, makes operation and non-problem. Its the digging up the fuel and doing away w/ the waste that has no good answers in sight, IMO.
Digging up or stealing raw uranium ore doesn't do a would-be terrorist or rogue state much good. They need to be able to enrich it and that is a tremendous undertaking.

Waste is also a non-issue that was turned into a major issue by liberals/environmentalists. Reprocessing could eliminate the waste issue entirely, but was outlawed in the US by Carter.
 
  • #40
russ_watters said:
Digging up or stealing raw uranium ore doesn't do a would-be terrorist or rogue state much good. They need to be able to enrich it and that is a tremendous undertaking.
Still a bit myopic in that the a world wide commercial nuke power industry doesn't run like a national weapons program. Yes of course the raw ore is not the problem. If the demand for the enriched fuel takes off then everyone will get (is getting) into the act. Everyone will want to be in the enriched fuel for export business - India, Pakistan, China, S. Africa. Iran? You'd be looking at 100's to 1000's of tons / yr of enriched fuel floating around while only 10kg needs to slip through the cracks.

Waste is also a non-issue that was turned into a major issue by liberals/environmentalists. Reprocessing could eliminate the waste issue entirely, but was outlawed in the US by Carter.
Again look at the bigger picture. The spent fuel is only part of the problem. There are 1000's of tons of non-fuel but still high-level, mega-curie waste material created at the power plants and then even more at the reprocessing plants (Euro for instance)that are never reprocessed. Nor is there any technical means available to do so to my knowledge. The fuel is chump-change in comparison by size. Granted, the non-fuel waste is not a bomb proliferation hazard.
 
  • #41
mheslep said:
Still a bit myopic in that the a world wide commercial nuke power industry doesn't run like a national weapons program. Yes of course the raw ore is not the problem. If the demand for the enriched fuel takes off then everyone will get (is getting) into the act. Everyone will want to be in the enriched fuel for export business - India, Pakistan, China, S. Africa. Iran? You'd be looking at 100's to 1000's of tons / yr of enriched fuel floating around while only 10kg needs to slip through the cracks.
I think you may be misunderstanding the issue. The fuel used in nuclear reactors is nowhere close to being enriched enough to use in bombs:

-Natural Uranium is .72% U235
-Reactor Grade Uranium is 3-5% U235
-Weapons Grade Uranium is 90% U235

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium
Again look at the bigger picture. The spent fuel is only part of the problem. There are 1000's of tons of non-fuel but still high-level, mega-curie waste material created at the power plants and then even more at the reprocessing plants (Euro for instance)that are never reprocessed. Nor is there any technical means available to do so to my knowledge. The fuel is chump-change in comparison by size. Granted, the non-fuel waste is not a bomb proliferation hazard.
No. This waste is far less radioactive than what was dug out of the ground. It is so benign it can be dumped in essentially ordinary landfills. It is encased to prevent it from leeching into groundwater.

http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~rer/ [Broken]
Low-level waste can include:

ion exchange resins and filter materials used to clean water at a nuclear power plant,
contaminated hand tools, components, piping, and other equipment from nuclear power plants and other industries,
research equipment from laboratories where radioactive materials are used,
shoe covers, lab coats, cleaning cloths, paper towels, etc., used in an area where radioactive material is present,
containers, cloth, paper, fluids, and equipment which came in contact with radioactive materials used in hospitals to diagnose or treat disease,
filters from sampling devices used to test for airborne radioactive contamination,
scintillation fluids in which filters from some sampling devices must be dissolved in order to determine the amount of radioactive material present, and
carcasses of animals treated with radioactive materials used in medical or pharmaceutical research.
And...
The radioactive particles in low-level waste emit the same types of radiation that everyone receives from nature. Most low-level waste fades away to natural background levels of radioactivity in months or years. Virtually all of it diminishes to natural levels in less than 500 years. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that releases of radiation at a disposal site not exceed an annual dose to any member of the public of 25 millirem to the whole body, 75 millirem to the thyroid, or 25 millirem to any other organ. In comparison, the average American is exposed to about 360 millirem of radiation annually mostly from natural sources (such as radon) and medical sources (such as X-rays). In practice, public exposures from low-level waste facilities are far lower than the NRC limits.
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=73 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
What happened to vitrolization and burying it?

You'd be looking at 100's to 1000's of tons / yr of enriched fuel floating around while only 10kg needs to slip through the cracks.
What is anybody going to do with raw uranium ore?

A lot of people keep show rocks in their house— no danger here.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
I think the answer to all the world's energy problems can be solved with the use of genetic engineering. First, we develop a super-soldier formula so that when injected into arecipient, their body metabolism increases so dramatically they can run as fast as The Flash (from DC comics) Next, we make several hundred thousand small cyclinders, attach them to turbines, and put genetically engineered hamsters into these wheels. Problem solved.

Until we get to that level of technology, fission is the best bet though (while I like solar, the chemical byproducts are too toxic for massive production feasibility).
 
  • #44
russ_watters said:
I think you may be misunderstanding the issue. The fuel used in nuclear reactors is nowhere close to being enriched enough to use in bombs:

-Natural Uranium is .72% U235
-Reactor Grade Uranium is 3-5% U235
-Weapons Grade Uranium is 90% U23

Thanks I'm well aware of the above but that's not the point. The issue is that is the control of technologies used in those enrichment facilities and the facilities themselves. As you mention up thread enrichment generally requires an enormous infrastructure, difficult to hide, but if the original premise is to grant nuke power to everyone, then you grant everyone enrichment. Then, the same technology that makes 3-5% reactor grade fuel can also be used to make weapons grade, hence the inspection concerns of Iran/N Korean who claim reactor grade for power use only. You also omit the fact that the reactor process will _produce_ Pu239 which requires no isotope separation for weapons use.
 
  • #45
mheslep said:
Thanks I'm well aware of the above but that's not the point. The issue is that is the control of technologies used in those enrichment facilities and the facilities themselves. As you mention up thread enrichment generally requires an enormous infrastructure, difficult to hide, but if the original premise is to grant nuke power to everyone, then you grant everyone enrichment. Then, the same technology that makes 3-5% reactor grade fuel can also be used to make weapons grade, hence the inspection concerns of Iran/N Korean who claim reactor grade for power use only. You also omit the fact that the reactor process will _produce_ Pu239 which requires no isotope separation for weapons use.

The pu produced in a reactor is not pure 239. It can be used in a crude weapon but the risk of a fizzle is much higher and the yeild will not be good. Its MUCH cheaper, quicker and more efficient to build a small plutonium producing reactor if you want to build nukes. No country would build comercial reactors to produce plutonium for weapons. It doesn't make any sense.

The obvious solution to the enrichment problem is to either change the NPT so only a select few nations are allowed to operate enrichment plants or make all enrichment plants into international collaborations.

It doesn't change the fact however that if a nation is dedicated to build nuclear weapons it doesn't matter if civilian nuclear power exist or not. The knoweledge exist and that is all that is needed.
 
  • #46
russ_watters said:
... No. This waste is far less radioactive than what was dug out of the ground. It is so benign it can be dumped in essentially ordinary landfills. It is encased to prevent it from leeching into groundwater.

I never said low level. There's substantial ILW (fuel rod cladding, chem. sludge) and the other fission products (Sr-90, Cs-137) are high level. None of that goes into a land fill.

Look, while reprocessing has come along way you just can't make the blanket statement "..Reprocessing could eliminate the waste issue entirely.." anymore than some "stop it now" crank can state nuke power is inherently bad. There remain numerous technical and economic problems (forget the political silliness). For example, everyone is just sitting on their reprocessed Pu. Let's recall that India exploded their bomb from reprocessed power reactor Pu.

Just scan the summary here -
http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/site_down/ipfmresearchreport03.pdf
Worldwide, about half of the plutonium being separated is simply being stockpiled at the reprocessing plants along with the associated high-level waste from reprocessing. In effect, those sites are interim spent-fuel storage sites – except that much of the spent fuel is being stored in separated form. As of 2005, the global stockpile of separated civilian plutonium had grown to 250 tons – sufficient to make more than 30,000 nuclear weapons.

and

Reprocessing makes plutonium accessible to would-be nuclear-weapon
makers – national or sub-national – because it eliminates the protection provided by the lethal gamma radiation emitted by the fission products with which the plutonium is mixed in spent fuel.

Even the French are stacking up their Pu now, afraid to ship it out of La Hague any more because of events like this
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb07/4891/4
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb07/4891/nucf3 [Broken]

From all this I think the most likely outcome given a decision to go 'all in' with commercial nuclear power is that a) all the waste will end up in Yucca mountain and b) only the already-nuclear capable countries could be allowed to play.

mheslep
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
Azael said:
The pu produced in a reactor is not pure 239. It can be used in a crude weapon but the risk of a fizzle is much higher and the yield will not be good. Its MUCH cheaper, quicker and more efficient to build a small plutonium producing reactor if you want to build nukes. No country would build commercial reactors to produce plutonium for weapons. It doesn't make any sense.
If you want to sneak into the bomb business that's exactly what you do (India), after some reprocessing (as advocated up thread) to get all Pu239. Please, enough of the solve-one-part-of-the-problem and I'm done engineering in this thread. You have to do something with that spent reactor fuel.

It doesn't change the fact however that if a nation is dedicated to build nuclear weapons it doesn't matter if civilian nuclear power exist or not.
Yes it does matter. Its almost impossible to hide the signs of significant enrichment facilities, that's why Iran and N. Korea's programs are visible. Civilian projects provide cover.
 
  • #48
mheslep said:
If you want to sneak into the bomb business that's exactly what you do (India), after some reprocessing (as advocated up thread) to get all Pu239. Please, enough of the solve-one-part-of-the-problem and I'm done engineering in this thread. You have to do something with that spent reactor fuel.

Well the simples thing to do with the plutonium is to either store it until we got enough plutonium burners aviable. Most gen 4 reactors will be more than capable of doing just that. The other option is to burry it without reprocessing. The quantities are so small that its not a big problem. There is no rush at all to "get rid" of the waste. Its not like someing is going to steal unprocessed spent nuclear fuel and it dose no harm where it currently is.

Yucca mountain and the similar swedish project KBS-3 is so slow because of political reasons, not technical or scientific.
In sweden for instance environemental organisations get money from the nuclear waste fund in order to conduct "indepedent studies" of waste disposal. They don't hide the fact that they only want to stall the final waste deposit in order to make nuclear power less economic. Thats surely a good way to spend the money:rolleyes:

mheslep said:
Yes it does matter. Its almost impossible to hide the signs of significant enrichment facilities, that's why Iran and N. Korea's programs are visible. Civilian projects provide cover.

Its not impossible to hide a plutonium producing research reactor running on natural uranium. Enrichment facilities are not neccesary to make a bomb! A civilian nuclear power infrastructure might cut down time to make a bomb with a year or two. But it won't make it impossible.

If I understand the NPT correctly enrichment facilites must be open for inspection, so the problem of enrichment is purely a problem of enforcing the NPT right? It is not a technical problem but a political one. It can hardly be used as a argument against nuclear power expansion in the countries that do not want enrichment.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
Enrichment facilities are not neccesary to make a bomb!
Eh? You need either 90% U235 or Pu239. Help me out, where do you go dig that up w/ out enrichment? Edit: I see you intended a weapons reactor to make the Pu, but that still requires enriched U (5%), so you still need enrichment.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
mheslep said:
Eh? You need either 90% U235 or Pu239. Help me out, where do you go dig that up w/ out enrichment? Edit: I see you intended a weapons reactor to make the Pu, but that still requires enriched U (5%), so you still need enrichment.

It isn't a big problem to build graphite or heavy water moderated plutonium producing reactors that run on natural uranium. The small plutonium producing reactors that russia used as a modell for the development of RBMK(Chernobyl) reactors used natural uranium as fueld and was graphite moderated.

Sweden intended to use a heavy water moderated natural uranium reactor(Marviken reactor) to produce weapons grade uranium before we decided we don't want nuclear weapons.

So it is perfectly possible to produce plutonium in some hidden underground facility without the need for a huge enrichment plant. Using civilian nuclear power as a disguise for nuclear weapons production is a expensive and slow route to take that doesn't make much sense.

The main problem with civilian nuclear power from a weapons perspective seems to be if a terrorist group somehow gets there hands on reactor grade plutonium. But the ammounts are so small that its easy to store and guard it.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
Azael said:
The other option is to burry it without reprocessing. The quantities are so small that its not a big problem. There is no rush at all to "get rid" of the waste. Its not like someing is going to steal unprocessed spent nuclear fuel and it dose no harm where it currently is.

Yucca mountain and the similar swedish project KBS-3 is so slow because of political reasons, not technical or scientific.
Oh good then! We'll just store it all in your backyard. Please define 'small'. French system alone is http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/images/feb07/images/nucf2.pdf" [Broken] tonnes of spent fuel per year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
mheslep said:
Oh good then! We'll just store it all in your backyard. Please define 'small'. French system alone is http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/images/feb07/images/nucf2.pdf" [Broken] tonnes of spent fuel per year.

This is starting to get a bit off track from the original topic. But you do the maths. How much volume does 1450 tons take up?

ALL of the swedish used nuclear fuel from 40 years of electricity production could fit into a large apartment(8000 tons, 95% beeing uranium).
If reprocessing all the transuranics could easily fit into a small room. Its remarkable that so little waste is produced considering nuclear power has provided sweden with 50% of its electricity needs for decades.

Compared it to the thousands if not tens of thousands of tons of ashes produced every single day in a fossile fuel plant. In industrial terms 1450 tons year is absolutely nothing.

I would not mind living close to a storage of nuclear waste. The extra radiation I would get from that is less than from a regular plane flight or a dental x-ray.

The biggest advantage of nuclear power is that it pays for the storage of all of its waste and contain all of its waste. Nothing is released into the environment(except miniscule ammounts of gases that are vented). No other industry can do that. When we switch to breeder reactors waste produced per kWh will be cut down to 1/50 of today.

Do you accept by the way that enrichment is NOT needed to build a bomb considering that was your main objection.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
Ok, granted its doable to make Pu from natural U in graphite reactors, and I suppose include CANDU heavy water ('enriched water') reactors too. I suspect that reactor better be shielded severely if you're trying to be covert, or its radiation signature would be long range detectable.
 
  • #54
Azael said:
This is starting to get a bit off track from the original topic. ...

Compared it to the thousands if not tens of thousands of tons of ashes produced every single day in a fossile fuel plant. In industrial terms 1450 tons year is absolutely nothing.

The original post was a call for suggested alternative fuels, i.e., non-fossil. Nuclear fission was added to the list in a cavalier matter IMO, w/out consideration of the severe difficulties, especially waste and proliferation hazards. Actually, I agree nuclear fission based power production should be increased in the US, but not forever as in a energy 'problem solved' sense.

And BTW, of course plenty of the other alternatives have no waste - solar, wind, etc.
 
  • #55
mheslep said:
The original post was a call for suggested alternative fuels, i.e., non-fossil. Nuclear fission was added to the list in a cavalier matter IMO, w/out consideration of the severe difficulties, especially waste and proliferation hazards. Actually, I agree nuclear fission based power production should be increased in the US, but not forever as in a energy 'problem solved' sense.

And BTW, of course plenty of the other alternatives have no waste - solar, wind, etc.

I think its the opposit, the waste and proliferation issues associated with civilian nuclear power are hugly exagerated by the greens. Especialy considering how small the acctualy amount of waste really is. The problems are mostly political not technical. So no technological leap is required to overcome the problems, all that it takes is change in policy. Thats why I praise china and india. In this particular case they are far more rational than europe and USA.

IMO nuclear power is a superior energy source with huge untapped potential. When small (100MWe) economic gen-4 plants become aviable I predict a explosion of nuclear power generation in third world countries. Electricity production, cheap desalination of water, hydrogen production ect.
Im not saying however that it is the one magic solution. But imo it is a crucial part of the future energy mixture.

Solar has plenty of waste btw. Atleast solar panels. They contain quite a bit of toxic substances. Solar thermal power doesn't share that disadvantage though. But I am not holding my breath waiting for solar and wind to replace coal. German energy department recently concluded that the huge german investments in windpower is a cost ineffective way to reduce CO2 emissions.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
Azael said:
I think its the opposite, the waste and proliferation issues associated with civilian nuclear power are hugely exaggerated by the greens
Agreed, but that doesn't mean you can use it as a strawman and imply there is no problem because of the greens
Especially considering how small the actually amount of waste really is. The problems are mostly political not technical. So no technological leap is required to overcome the problems, all that it takes is change in policy. Thats why I praise china and india. In this particular case they are far more rational than europe and USA.
We're back to subjectives again. I say its not small given the lethality of the waste. High level waste is some of the deadliest stuff per gram on the planet. Also, you say no tech leap is required then below go on to say all is well as soon as we get gen 4. Which is it?
Solar has plenty of waste btw. Atleast solar panels. They contain quite a bit of toxic substances. Solar thermal power doesn't share that disadvantage though. .
Eh? Please compare fuel (U) to fuel (sunlight) and infrastructure (nuke power plants) to infrastructure (solar panels). I'll call my solar panel waste when you call your entire nuke plant waste.
 
  • #57
" And BTW, of course plenty of the other alternatives have no waste - solar, wind, etc."

Maybe, but where's the beef, err energy? How many wind generators do you have to put up to take the place of a 1000MW reactor generator? The energy you get from a wind generator is proportional to the cube of the wind speed. You have to start the thing spinning, so you need at least 30mph wind to even make it pay off. Not many places with this kind of sustained wind.
 
  • #58
mheslep said:
And BTW, of course plenty of the other alternatives have no waste - solar, wind, etc.
Never forget production costs and breakeven energy.
 
  • #59
Arg. Yeah, yeah, I never proposed solar or wind for alternative energy, read the thread. I only emphasized that its operation cycle does not produce waste.
 
  • #60
mheslep said:
Agreed, but that doesn't mean you can use it as a strawman and imply there is no problem because of the greens

There is problems but they already have solutions! Store the waste in yucca mountain facilities or let it be in the temporatyr storages until we have built enough burners. I don't se what the problem is with the waste? How many people have ever been hurt by nuclear waste?

The biggest problem nuclear power has is not technical, its environmentalists and public opinion. Fortunaly that isn't a problem in the developing countries and that's why I have faith in nuclear power as a alternative fuel.

mheslep said:
We're back to subjectives again. I say its not small given the lethality of the waste. High level waste is some of the deadliest stuff per gram on the planet. Also, you say no tech leap is required then below go on to say all is well as soon as we get gen 4. Which is it?

Well first of all most of the gen 4 reactors are developments of reactors that already exist experimentaly. Fast reactors, pebble bed, molten salt ect. So you don't need a breakthrough. Just some solid development.

With small amount I mean volume, the waste can easily be stored in one single location and that makes it easy to guard. It doesn't matter that it is extremely lethal since there is no plausible way that it will ever get released into the environment.

mheslep said:
Eh? Please compare fuel (U) to fuel (sunlight) and infrastructure (nuke power plants) to infrastructure (solar panels). I'll call my solar panel waste when you call your entire nuke plant waste.

Offcourse a big chunk of the plant is treated as radioactive waste. But how many solar panels do you need to replace one 1GWe reactor? How long is the lifetime of those solar panels? Its not only radioactive materials that are harmfull. The toxic substances in solar panels might not be as harmfull gram per gram as nuclear waste. But right now we(EU and america) just dump all our electronic waste in India and africa without any regard to the environment. Add millions of solarpanels to that waste and you have a environmental disaster.
 
  • #61
I guess what I want to say is that all energy production has some kind of environmental impact. Mining minerals, electronic waste, radioactive waste ect. Nuclear power just happens to have one of the smallest environmental impacts. Probably only beaten by hydropower and possibly windpower.
 
  • #62
Azael said:
I guess what I want to say is that all energy production has some kind of environmental impact. Mining minerals, electronic waste, radioactive waste ect. Nuclear power just happens to have one of the smallest environmental impacts. Probably only beaten by hydropower and possibly windpower.

Tell that to the salmon in the Colombia river. Better hurry!

(But I do agree with your general point)
 
  • #63
Just a small note about biofuels:

There's been a big push, especially from the UK for biofuels, and its caused massive numbers palm plantations being created in malaysia and other countries. (Palm being one of the major ingredients for proposed biofuels, as well as a more and more common ingredient in foods, cosmetics etc) To make room for plantations to meet demand, they're rapidly cutting down the rainforests. Also, the plantations are run in a very inefficient way, and overall, creates more green house gasses and a greater environmental impact than the current production and use of fossil fuels.



PS- There are a lot of endangered animals because of habitat loss due to palm plantations, (orangutans esp) and a lot of american companies (ie nabisco) are taking advantage of the cheap mass production and using palm in their products. Just so you know.
 
  • #64
Gale said:
PS- There are a lot of endangered animals because of habitat loss due to palm plantations, (orangutans esp) and a lot of american companies (ie nabisco) are taking advantage of the cheap mass production and using palm in their products. Just so you know.
Nabisco, as have most major US name brands, no longer use palm oil. The last reference I could find to them using palm oil dates back to 1989, not sure exactly when they stopped. They announced no plans to stop in 1989 but none of their products in the US seem to use it now.

You can check out ingredients of individual products here. Oops take that back! GOLDEN Oreos contain palm oil! WHO EATS WHITE OREOS? That's against nature.

http://www.nabisco.com/Brands/default.aspx [Broken]

This also a list of food companies that as of 1989 had already stopped.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...&n=Top/Reference/Times Topics/Subjects/F/Food

Not to derail biofuels, but there is a whole other problem with palm hearts (which I love), but I have switched to eating a different plant that is almost the same, but is not endagering wild palm. Another sad story from South America.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #65
Hm, sorry, you're right about Nabisco. I thought Cheez-its were made by them... they make Cheese Nips, which are in fact, Palm free.

The reason most American companies stopped was because of a huge ad campaign produced by the hydrogenated oil companies. Palm first began gaining use back in the 80's, but the negative publicity soon took it out of many products. In the UK, however, no such ad campaign occured, which is why you will find many more products with palm in them over there.
 
  • #66
http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showId=4934 [Broken]
There's a video that goes through some of the issues. There are pushes being made for sustainable palm oil, which wouldn't be so detrimental to the environment. Also, the video fails to metion that when the rainforests are cut down, hundreds of endangered species lose their habitats.

Also, this is not something singular to palm oil. Where we to switch to say, soy oil instead, we would have the same issues, but in Brazil instead. Its an issue of over zealous first world countries projecting a need for alternative fuel onto third world countries, who see only an opportunity to lessen poverty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
Gale said:
Just a small note about biofuels:

There's been a big push, especially from the UK for biofuels, and its caused massive numbers palm plantations being created in malaysia and other countries. (Palm being one of the major ingredients for proposed biofuels, as well as a more and more common ingredient in foods, cosmetics etc) To make room for plantations to meet demand, they're rapidly cutting down the rainforests. Also, the plantations are run in a very inefficient way, and overall, creates more green house gasses and a greater environmental impact than the current production and use of fossil fuels.



PS- There are a lot of endangered animals because of habitat loss due to palm plantations, (orangutans esp) and a lot of american companies (ie nabisco) are taking advantage of the cheap mass production and using palm in their products. Just so you know.

The problem is that there is only one crop that can produce enough biofuel per acre-year to satisfy the need for crude oil: Algae. Any other option will require more land for fuel crops than we have land.

Here is one of latest projects that plans to convert to algae production.
http://xldairygroup.com/pressrelease.cfm?ContentKey=620

We discussed the case of corn-ethanol, and then the case of biodiesel from algae here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=171576

One note of caution wrt algae production: There are some [at least one] companies claiming yields as high as 45,000 gallons of biodiesel fuel per acre-year from algae. From what I've read, this is an unrealistic claim. You will find some debunking out there addressing these claims, but in fact most people are hoping for 10,000 - 15,000 gallons per acre-year at most. So you have to be careful about who is being debunked. For a time some of the litererature out there threw me, but the more modest claims seem to be well estabished; most notably through the aquatic species program, but also through a great deal of research done since.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf

I have started a company to produce biodiesel from algae and am using 7500 gallons per acre-year as a standard. Palm can produce something like 700 gallons of biodiesel per acre-year.

For members in the U.S., take note of the new, green, diesel pump, that you have seen or will see at your local fuel station. The clean, new generation of diesels cars are here or coming soon, and in one head to head comparison, they get better mileage than hybrids. The Honda Civic Hybrid gets a combined hwy/city average of 45 mpg, and the Honda Civic diesel [no hybrid] already available in Europe gets 55 mpg using the same standard. Some companies like Ford are now working on diesel hybrids.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
" I have started a company to produce biodiesel from algae and am using 7500 gallons per acre-year as a standard."

Just curious. In the northwest?
 
<h2>1. What are alternative fuels?</h2><p>Alternative fuels are any fuel sources that can be used as a substitute for traditional fossil fuels. They are typically renewable and have a lower impact on the environment.</p><h2>2. Why is it important to support alternative fuels?</h2><p>Supporting alternative fuels is important because it helps to reduce our dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels, which contribute to air pollution and climate change. Alternative fuels also have the potential to create new jobs and stimulate economic growth.</p><h2>3. What are some examples of alternative fuels?</h2><p>Some examples of alternative fuels include biofuels (such as ethanol and biodiesel), hydrogen, natural gas, electricity, and renewable diesel. Each of these fuels has unique properties and benefits.</p><h2>4. How do alternative fuels compare to traditional fossil fuels?</h2><p>Alternative fuels generally have a lower impact on the environment compared to traditional fossil fuels. They can also be more sustainable and cost-effective in the long run. However, the availability and infrastructure for alternative fuels may still be limited in some areas.</p><h2>5. How can I support the use of alternative fuels?</h2><p>There are several ways to support the use of alternative fuels, such as using alternative fuel vehicles, advocating for government policies that promote their use, and investing in companies and technologies that develop and produce alternative fuels. You can also make small changes in your daily life, such as using public transportation or carpooling, to reduce your own carbon footprint.</p>

1. What are alternative fuels?

Alternative fuels are any fuel sources that can be used as a substitute for traditional fossil fuels. They are typically renewable and have a lower impact on the environment.

2. Why is it important to support alternative fuels?

Supporting alternative fuels is important because it helps to reduce our dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels, which contribute to air pollution and climate change. Alternative fuels also have the potential to create new jobs and stimulate economic growth.

3. What are some examples of alternative fuels?

Some examples of alternative fuels include biofuels (such as ethanol and biodiesel), hydrogen, natural gas, electricity, and renewable diesel. Each of these fuels has unique properties and benefits.

4. How do alternative fuels compare to traditional fossil fuels?

Alternative fuels generally have a lower impact on the environment compared to traditional fossil fuels. They can also be more sustainable and cost-effective in the long run. However, the availability and infrastructure for alternative fuels may still be limited in some areas.

5. How can I support the use of alternative fuels?

There are several ways to support the use of alternative fuels, such as using alternative fuel vehicles, advocating for government policies that promote their use, and investing in companies and technologies that develop and produce alternative fuels. You can also make small changes in your daily life, such as using public transportation or carpooling, to reduce your own carbon footprint.

Similar threads

Replies
26
Views
949
Replies
8
Views
821
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Engineering
3
Replies
76
Views
11K
Replies
6
Views
939
  • Electrical Engineering
4
Replies
117
Views
8K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
760
Back
Top