The Fallacy Of Alternative Energies

[James L Walker]

Here's an alternative for you - natural gas.
It's already commonly used for heating and pipes are in the ground. Automobile home refuelling means infrastructure is relatively simple to implement. Reserves of natural gas are not in decline.

The buzz on alternatives to gasoline usually focuses on hybrids or ethanol. But Honda is quietly pushing another alternative: a Civic that runs on compressed natural gas (CNG). The Civic GX was initially offered as a 1998 model to fleet customers, but Honda began limited sales to California consumers in 2005 and has since expanded the car’s retail reach to New York.

Like other alternatives, CNG has its advantages and disadvantages. Compared with gasoline, it has much cleaner emissions while providing similar fuel economy, performance, and driveability. Its relative energy cost can be about half that of gasoline when using a home-fueling station. And it’s mostly a domestically produced energy source; 85 percent of the CNG consumed in the U.S. is also produced here. On the other hand, the Civic GX is priced almost $7,000 higher than a similar gasoline-powered version, refueling stations are relatively rare, and CNG is not available at all--even for home fueling--in some areas.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/the-pros-cons-of-buying-a-cng-powered-honda-civic/overview/0609_how-to-jump-start-a-car_ov.htm

While it is true that there is more natural gas than petroleum, how long of global natural gas consumption do you think it would take before that peaks too?

Peak oil only took a estimated two hundred and twelve years to globally deplete.

Is there even enough natural gas for global consumption for prolonged periods of time?

[phyllo]

Natural gas burns cleaner than coal or oil and the large reserves gives us more time to develop alternate energies. It's win-win.

[James L Walker]

Natural gas burns cleaner than coal or oil and the large reserves gives us more time to develop alternate energies. It's win-win.

Is there enough natural gas to meet global consumption? That is the question you must ask and answer for your argument to hold any merit.

[phyllo]

It doesn't need to meet global demands - it's another fuel in addition to oil,etc. If half the cars in the US run on natural gas, then you have much lower emissions and less need for oil. We get extra time to develop solar, geothermal, fusion into viable alternatives . Natural gas reserves don't let us sit complacently on our butts, we still need to develop a clean, reliable replacement energy source( or several) and put an infrastructure into place.

[Calrid]

Bio-ethanol has potentially the same power output as petrol too, although you do need a lot of corn. But then you can probably get electricity from corn fields. Brazil's been using it for years.

[phyllo]

Bioethanol takes away valuable farmland and contributes to food scarcity.

[Calrid]

Bioethanol takes away valuable farmland and contributes to food scarcity.

What in Europe and the US? The main greenhouse gas contributors?

We should use our grain surpluses every year instead of letting them go to waste, turn them into bio ethanol.

[phyllo]

New calculations indicate that biofuels don't burn that cleanly.

Farmland is specifically used to grow crops for biofuel - it's not a case of just utilizing a surplus.

This is an intro to some of the issues:

There are various social, economic, environmental and technical issues with biofuel production and use, which have been discussed in the popular media and scientific journals. These include: the effect of moderating oil prices, the "food vs fuel" debate, poverty reduction potential, carbon emissions levels, sustainable biofuel production, deforestation and soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, impact on water resources, as well as energy balance and efficiency. The International Resource Panel, which provides independent scientific assessments and expert advice on a variety of resource-related themes, assessed the issues relating to biofuel use in its first report Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing Biofuels.[1] In it, it outlined the wider and interrelated factors that need to be considered when deciding on the relative merits of pursuing one biofuel over another. It concluded that not all biofuels perform equally in terms of their impact on climate, energy security and ecosystems, and suggested that environmental and social impacts need to be assessed throughout the entire life-cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_rel ... o_biofuels

[James L Walker]

It doesn't need to meet global demands - it's another fuel in addition to oil,etc. If half the cars in the US run on natural gas, then you have much lower emissions and less need for oil. We get extra time to develop solar, geothermal, fusion into viable alternatives . Natural gas reserves don't let us sit complacently on our butts, we still need to develop a clean, reliable replacement energy source( or several) and put an infrastructure into place.

So, if I am reading that correctly unless a suitable replacement is found after the switch to natural gas were just delaying the inevitable. Agreed.

[James L Walker]

Bioethanol takes away valuable farmland and contributes to food scarcity.

Not to mention Brazil uses a slash and burn technique that puts a quite of bit of smoke in the atmosphere.

[Calrid]

New calculations indicate that biofuels don't burn that cleanly.

Farmland is specifically used to grow crops for biofuel - it's not a case of just utilizing a surplus.

This is an intro to some of the issues:

There are various social, economic, environmental and technical issues with biofuel production and use, which have been discussed in the popular media and scientific journals. These include: the effect of moderating oil prices, the "food vs fuel" debate, poverty reduction potential, carbon emissions levels, sustainable biofuel production, deforestation and soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, impact on water resources, as well as energy balance and efficiency. The International Resource Panel, which provides independent scientific assessments and expert advice on a variety of resource-related themes, assessed the issues relating to biofuel use in its first report Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing Biofuels.[1] In it, it outlined the wider and interrelated factors that need to be considered when deciding on the relative merits of pursuing one biofuel over another. It concluded that not all biofuels perform equally in terms of their impact on climate, energy security and ecosystems, and suggested that environmental and social impacts need to be assessed throughout the entire life-cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_rel ... o_biofuels

I'm not here to propose there is a perfect replacement just that there are viable alternatives, it's possible to farm corn without slash and burn techniques, it's possible to use converters to limit exhaust emissions, this does not say it is perfect but it is viable.

[James L Walker]

New calculations indicate that biofuels don't burn that cleanly.

Farmland is specifically used to grow crops for biofuel - it's not a case of just utilizing a surplus.

This is an intro to some of the issues:

There are various social, economic, environmental and technical issues with biofuel production and use, which have been discussed in the popular media and scientific journals. These include: the effect of moderating oil prices, the "food vs fuel" debate, poverty reduction potential, carbon emissions levels, sustainable biofuel production, deforestation and soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, impact on water resources, as well as energy balance and efficiency. The International Resource Panel, which provides independent scientific assessments and expert advice on a variety of resource-related themes, assessed the issues relating to biofuel use in its first report Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing Biofuels.[1] In it, it outlined the wider and interrelated factors that need to be considered when deciding on the relative merits of pursuing one biofuel over another. It concluded that not all biofuels perform equally in terms of their impact on climate, energy security and ecosystems, and suggested that environmental and social impacts need to be assessed throughout the entire life-cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_rel ... o_biofuels

I'm not here to propose there is a perfect replacement just that there are viable alternatives, it's possible to farm corn without slash and burn techniques, it's possible to use converters to limit exhaust emissions, this does not say it is perfect but it is viable.

It is possible but very time consuming, difficult, and a expensive process within a limited span considering harvesting is seasonal.

[Calrid]

There are various social, economic, environmental and technical issues with biofuel production and use, which have been discussed in the popular media and scientific journals. These include: the effect of moderating oil prices, the "food vs fuel" debate, poverty reduction potential, carbon emissions levels, sustainable biofuel production, deforestation and soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, impact on water resources, as well as energy balance and efficiency. The International Resource Panel, which provides independent scientific assessments and expert advice on a variety of resource-related themes, assessed the issues relating to biofuel use in its first report Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing Biofuels.[1] In it, it outlined the wider and interrelated factors that need to be considered when deciding on the relative merits of pursuing one biofuel over another. It concluded that not all biofuels perform equally in terms of their impact on climate, energy security and ecosystems, and suggested that environmental and social impacts need to be assessed throughout the entire life-cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_rel ... o_biofuels

I'm not here to propose there is a perfect replacement just that there are viable alternatives, it's possible to farm corn without slash and burn techniques, it's possible to use converters to limit exhaust emissions, this does not say it is perfect but it is viable.

It is possible but very time consuming, difficult, and a expensive process within a limited span considering harvesting is seasonal.

Well considering on planet Earth the harvest season is 365 days a year, I doubt that. How do you know it's not viable, if everyone was doing it wouldn't it become less expensive and wouldn't the technology improve exponentially over time?

Besides it not really relevant if it's better than oil, just if it could replace it. In the same way coal can be turned into oil by a process invented by the krouts during the war.

[James L Walker]

Calrid:
Well considering on planet Earth the harvest season is 365 days a year, I doubt that. How do you know it's not viable, if everyone was doing it wouldn't it become less expensive and wouldn't the technology improve exponentially over time?

Besides it not really relevant if it's better than oil, just if it could replace it. In the same way coal can be turned into oil by a process invented by the krouts during the war.

Land and space would become a issue. Peak top soil too along with environmental damage.

Agriculture on a large scale can be environmentally damaging in the long run.

[James L Walker]

Abiogenic petroleum origin is a hypothesis that was proposed as an alternative to theory of biological petroleum origin. It was relatively popular in the past, but it became largely forgotten at the end of the 20th century after it failed to predict the location of new wells.[1]

The abiogenic hypothesis argues that petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. Supporters of the abiogenic hypothesis suggest that a great deal more petroleum exists on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids that migrate upward from the mantle. The presence of methane on Saturn's moon Titan and in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is cited[1] as evidence of the formation of hydrocarbons without biology.[2]

The biogenic theory for petroleum was first proposed by Georg Agricola in the 16th century and various abiogenic hypotheses were proposed in the 19th century, most notably by Alexander von Humboldt, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev and the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot. Abiogenic hypotheses were revived in the last half of the 20th century by Russian and Ukrainian scientists, who had little influence outside the Soviet Union because most of their research was published in their native languages. The theory was re-defined and made popular in the West by Thomas Gold, who published all his research in English.[1]

Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by many geologists in the former Soviet Union, it allegedly fell out of favor because it never made any useful prediction for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] Most geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported.[1] The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds).[1]

It has been recently discovered that thermophilic bacteria, in the sea bottom and in cooling magma, produce methane and hydrocarbon gases,[3][4] but studies indicate they are not produced in commercially significant quantities (i.e. in extracted hydrocarbon gases, the median abiogenic hydrocarbon content is 0.02%, or 1 part in 5,000).[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_ ... l_theories

[James L Walker]

The Titan argument- The presence of methane on Saturn's moon Titan and in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is cited as evidence of the formation of hydrocarbons without biology,[1][38] for example by Thomas Gold[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_ ... l_theories

[Calrid]

Calrid:
Well considering on planet Earth the harvest season is 365 days a year, I doubt that. How do you know it's not viable, if everyone was doing it wouldn't it become less expensive and wouldn't the technology improve exponentially over time?

Besides it not really relevant if it's better than oil, just if it could replace it. In the same way coal can be turned into oil by a process invented by the krouts during the war.

Land and space would become a issue. Peak top soil too along with environmental damage.

Agriculture on a large scale can be environmentally damaging in the long run.

Huh? We already have massive grain surpluses in Europe with the grain and land we have? This makes no sense. Europe by far and a way has the tightest regulations on agriculture in the West, we can't even fart in a river without attracting the attention of some eurocrat.

It would probably make more sense if we exported our excess grain to starving countries in return for brownie points on the global warming thing.

[James L Walker]

Calrid, what do you think of peak top soil?

There is a variety of global peaks taking place.

[Calrid]

Calrid, what do you think of peak top soil?

There is a variety of global peaks taking place.

It doesn't exist in Europe because every year we produce massive grain mountains in surplus that just generally rot. the problem is not food or fuel, it is equality of tech and of food.

[Faust]

http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documen ... price.html

There is no crisis to discuss. Alternatives to oil have not been very much exploited mostly because there isn't enough economic incentive to do so. As for food - there's much more food produced in the world than is needed. The US, as well as Europe, produces vast surpluses of food.

The sad fact is that we are, most of us, far better off economically than in any time in the past.

[BUFFALO]

There is no crisis to discuss. Alternatives to oil have not been very much exploited mostly because there isn't enough economic incentive to do so. As for food - there's much more food produced in the world than is needed. The US, as well as Europe, produces vast surpluses of food. The sad fact is that we are, most of us, far better off economically than in any time in the past.

And, that is still no justification for thinking that human population can/should continue to grow (exponentially?) without dire consequences.

[James L Walker]

http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/oil/oil_price.html

There is no crisis to discuss. Alternatives to oil have not been very much exploited mostly because there isn't enough economic incentive to do so. As for food - there's much more food produced in the world than is needed. The US, as well as Europe, produces vast surpluses of food.

The sad fact is that we are, most of us, far better off economically than in any time in the past.

Where is this we coming from?

Don't you mean people like yourself are better off?

I am no better off.

You forget that the United States and Europe exports a lot of that surplus to relying countries.

The reason there is no incentive is because there is no possible way to replace current infrastructure. Those in economical authority know this.

[Faust]

In fact, James, the bigger problem is that we do not export it all, nor use it all. But surely those "relying" countries are better off than if we did not export any at all. All countries import and export many goods and services. I fail to see that as a problem. International trade improves economies, and has for centuries.

[James L Walker]

In fact, James, the bigger problem is that we do not export it all, nor use it all. But surely those "relying" countries are better off than if we did not export any at all. All countries import and export many goods and services. I fail to see that as a problem. International trade improves economies, and has for centuries.

In many regions of the United States farmers are paid to not grow anything at all.

I have noticed that, however I am pretty sure some of that unused grains goes towards ethanol or at the very least it did four years ago.

I can't pinpoint how much of a national surplus there is in the United States because all sorts of agriculture gets shipped out all over the world especially in Africa, Asia, South America, and the Middle East.