Is bio fuels the answer to our fuel energy crisis?

Answer 1

I believe it will be a combination of many different technologys.It will reqiure a lot of investment in the many types of infrastructure to accomplish this.Bio fuels are a small part of the solution.

Answer 2

The short answer is no. No matter the tag you place on it , a fuel is a fuel and will produce a polutent as a byproduct; though it may be cleaner burning and possibly cheaper in the short term. Those who have read some of my thoughts on this issue know that I am not a fan of any fuel which is symply a replacement for the gas and diesel we already use. Why? Because if you don't own it, you have to pay for it. You have to shoulder the cost of making it, refining it, transporting it, storing it and ensuring that envestors get big returns for it on the commodity markets. Sound familiar? I'm not picking on the oil companies, I just wish I had a choice (other than to drive or not to drive) and batteries are the way to go. I can charge them up for free (solar, wind etc) or pay my local power company. Choice....that's fair.

Answer 3

There's lots of rubbish in this thread. Electricity isn't a fuel, it's a medium for energy storage. The energy has to come from a source.

A single fuel change won't solve anybody's crisis (and you may as well define "our" while we are at it)- the energy production and consumption system has to change. And we basically need to use less energy per head.

Rubbish, now there's a fuel - there seems to be a vast supply of that.

Answer 4

Even fossil fuels are 'bio' fuels in the sense that they are derived from ancient marine organisms, which got buried and got converted over a few million years under heat and compression of the earth's crust.

Current work is aimed at producing diesel from plants like Jatropha, which grow in semi arid lands with minimal water.

Communities that are below subsistence level in developing countries like India and Africa, which also have large tracts of such land areas, can generate employment and improve the quality of life of such people, incidentally benefiting the rest of the fuel guzzling world.

Answer 5

precise, you ignored bio gas because is an entire different debate in itself, and there is an opposing part with pages of arguments, maximum of them stretched, incorrect or lies. yet that did no longer quit lots of the deniers from turning the question precise back to bio gas besides, and not even touching wind, photograph voltaic, tidal or geothermal. in spite of. Bio gas is the place their conversing factors are so as that's must be estimated, it is in simple terms what they do. And why are lots of deniers so prepared on algae oil rapidly. Is there oil funded learn on that? Did bill O'reilly talk approximately it? the sole reason i will think of is that it remains years faraway from being workable, as quickly as we've workable strategies now. So of path, oil businesses could push for the non workable option. It has large means although. yet another one is ethanol from cellulose, and methane from bio mass. A brewing operation like that should start up with the waste from nutrition, farming, paper, lumbar, waste disposal, and a variety of of different different industries. they could produce gas and soil. no person opposes that, they oppose ethanol from corn sugar, because's what they understand, yet whilst there have been government subsidies for ethanol from cellulose, deniers could oppose that too. except of path republicans have been in means on the time it replaced into backed, then they could be throughout it. And we can't assume any of the possibilities to compete with fossil fuels contained accessible place. Fossil fuels have an unfair benefit, it is densely packed capability that truly spews up from the floor. it is filthy and poisonous, besides the incontrovertible fact that it is low priced. each and every thing else demands fairly greater artwork, that's all. yet that's no longer a valid reason to oppose it. so the excuses are: a million) they have a decrease income margin then fossil fuels. and that's it. that's all there is.

Answer 6

Bio fuel is the worst disaster on this unfortunate planet.
It currently takes 1.8 hectares of land to feed a citizen for a year, that includes all of the grain to feed the animals we on average eat, this also includes all of the fruit and veg the beers and wines, and the average need for grazing land as well.
Bio fuel equals the utilisation of this very limited space for a product that will use up water, but not put food in mouths. food will increase in cost by 30% in the next few years becuase of demand and supply. This is all caused by the demand for biofuel, the poor will get poorer as they will have less access to buy and sell produce. The hungry will die faster as there will be less food produce for them. The west will wonder what is happening as availability of food becomes reality, but the American will still be able to drive 50 yards rather than walk.
finaly sadly Orangoetangs will only exist in zoo's
Bio fuel is not the answer it just moves the problem sideways

Answer 7

No. Some 90 -95 % of the energy a car uses in its life time is used to produce the car in the first place and so what fule it uses is of little consequence. By the time the car is on your drive the enviromental damage has alreadly been done. This is also true with so-called green energy projects like wind power. There is more energy used in building them that they generate in their life time. The answer to the energy problem is..........well there isn't one.

Answer 8

i don't think bio fuels will be the answer because we already know that monocultures in agriculture are not a gopod idea...it's not so much about them being in competition with food crops and more to do with teh environmental damage that will be and already has been done in producing teh biofuels themselves.
in Brazil tehy ahve cut down even more of teh pristine rain forest inorder to plant the biofuel crops...there's no point averting one environmantal disaster by making another one worse...

recycling oil to use makes sense on a small acale but mass produced biofuel is a loser...more's teh pity...

i don't know what will help, i suspect a mix of different ideas but most of all we all need to look at reducing our consumption, of fuels as well as other finite resources..we need to invest more in public transport and make sure town planning takes into account proximity of services instead of building out of town housing and shopping centers which mean a car is absolutely necessary..

Answer 9

The answer to everything is that there never is THE one answer to anything.
Life and problems are very diverse and problem needs a wide range of measures to tackle it, reliance on one causes other problems
e.g Bio fuel production is destroying the habitat for Orangutans

Answer 10

No for all the above reasons, but it will help wile they design more efficient vehicles. In the 1960's most cars could only do 30 - 35 mpg now 40 - 45 mpg is common. But I am afraid I think for homes and businesses we will have to consider nuclear power as the way forward till we perfect wave and wind power.
New houses now have double glazing against single why not treble as they do in Scandinavia? Modern houses have a cavity wall why not two?

Answer 11

Probably not much of an answer due to the issues of us needing enough to eat and also wanting to use improved farming technology to return some farmland to the wild.

For transportation fuels I suspect biofuels will have a role to play because we're going to need everything we can get to replace oil but synthetic hydrocarbons are what I'd prefer myself (hydrogen is nice but it is rather hard to handle, a synthetic diesel fuel would be much easier).

To those who mention Brazil, they don't use very much fuel compared to a lot of other countries and they still don't run every car on 100% biofuels (i.e. they still import oil).