Biofuels won’t power world alone

[4dsc]

Good read..

I read articles in the Capital Press, almost every week it seems, on how growing crops for bio fuels will help either wean us off Mideast oil or give farmers a new market for their crop, without even considering how dependent our nation is on fossil fuel-based fertilizers and pesticides to grow our food.

Now we want to use more fossil fuel-based fertilizers and pesticides to “grow fuel” to run our equipment. As the costs of fossil fuels become increasingly expensive, so will the cost of the fertilizers and pesticides derived from them.

So how are you going to grow crops for producing fuel with ever-increasing input costs due to rising energy costs? In the days of cheap oil that may have been feasible but with ever-increasing input costs where are the savings?

While there is most certainly a place for biofuels in a post peak petroleum world, do not think that we can maintain our easy motoring, drive-thru and endless consumptive lifestyle on biofuels and hybrid cars.

Some people think technology will “save us” or we will find “something” to replace fossil fuels. Even Mr. Woolsey admits that technology is not going to be the answer. Technology is not energy, folks. Not to mention you need energy to produce technology.

http://www.energybulletin.net/14012.html

[redphish]

1. Using hydrogen as fuel has a similar drawback.

The most economical way to produce hydrogen is from natural gas. Producing it from seawater would require large amounts of electricity, again mainly from petroleum. It's vital that we come up with a balanced plan for a combination of technologies for future energy sources. This can't happen with our current government totally beholden to the petroleum industry.

[Dead_Parrot]

3. Both ethanol and hydrogen require lots of electricity

at least, in a non-fossil enviroment. If we assume a mix of hydrogen and ethanol, we'd need to produce something like 100 PWh of juice per year. For the record, we currently produce ~16PWh.

Let me here you say "Oh Fuck"...

[buddysmellgood]

2. Why should biofuel have to depend on fossil fuel-based fertilizer? Who is

suggesting that biofuels have to replace all fossil fuels? Who thought technology was energy? I think these are staw men. After all, we use technology to get and refine oil.
The answer will undoubtedly be technological. Even conservation will be achieved through technology.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. without fertiliser, you can't grow monocrop biofuel stock

The soil will be fucked in a few years. Actually, the soil's already fucked, but fertiliser prevents you from noticing: We'll need to go back to crop rotation to keep the soil productive. It may be that switchgrass, corn and soy are a good rotation pattern, in which case it's not too bad, but I can't answer that one.

[Webster Green]

9. The obvious answer is organic farming...

It solves a lot of those problems.

[NNadir]

5. Of course they won't.

Your link, by the way, in my hands is not working.

[dcfirefighter]

6. We really only need biofuels for flight

All land based energy can be supplied by less energy dense solutions - especially as economic conservation occurs with rising prices.

The question is whether we want to do something about it before it all falls down on it's own.

[rfkrfk]

7. liquid fuel is the shortage, not fossil fuel

the supply of coal is essentially limitless,
for at least a few generations

the liquid fuel energy gain of making ethanol
is more that ten to one, I'll post the link if anyone is interested.

Ethanol as fuel helps set an indirect price floor on corn,
helping farmers worldwide, not just in the US,
why are people against that?
farmers are paid not to grow.

are people here for or against the ethanol subsidy?
are people for or against the biodiesel subsidy,
if, against ethanol, and for biodiesel, please explain

[Dead_Parrot]

8. ROFL

"the supply of coal is essentially limitless, for at least a few generations"

Ahh, taking the long term view, then. :) I've got a limitless supply of beer for at least the next 20 minutes.

At the current rate of use, we've got about 200 years worth. If we're using it (via liqufaction) to replace oil, however, we have (in terms of MJ) 4 trillion barrels worth. Or ~80 years, at the current rates for oil and coal (assuming we find and use all of it. Peak Coal, anyone?).

Needless to say, I've ignored the mining and processing costs.

(edit: got the sum wrong - 80 yrs, not 100)