4 ms·

> We all know that fossil fuel powered vehicles aren't the future. Are we sure of this? Are biofuels not an option here? If you lived in California, you'd know

> We all know that fossil fuel powered vehicles aren't the future. Are we sure of this? Are biofuels not an option here? If you lived in California, you'd know that our pathetic grid can barely handle the load now. When everyone plugs in their Tesla at 6pm it's going to be pandemonium. Of course, Gavin is happy handing the extra business to his buds at PG&E.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago
As far as I know, biofuels could never replace the current usage. The amount of land and water required would be prohibitive. See: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economics-biofuels https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economics-biofue...
dredmorbius 3y ago
No, biofuels are not an option, not at the present scale of fossil fuel consumption, or at any likely increase in net fuel consumption which would reflect the rest of the world rising to a modest fraction of US/EU per capita energy consumption. Realise that we shifted from biofuels to fossil fuels in the 19th and early 20th centuries because the energy-fueled technologically-driven economic growth people wanted simply wasn't possible with agriculturally-based energy systems. In 1900, the US devoted a fifth of its grain supply to transportation, in the form of horse feed. Henry Ford experimented with alcohol-based automobiles. Ultimately large petroleum finds (Spindletop, the East Texas Oil Field, and Ghawar in Saudi Arabia) demonstrated that petroleum would be a reliable fuel source for the foreseeable future. Biofuel yields vary, and some of the higher claims remain largely theoretical (grasses, pickleweed, and algae particularly). Demonstrated biofuel productivity from crops such as soybean, sunflower, and sugarcane range around 48--63, 63--90, and 700 gallons/acre (about 450--590, 590--840, and 6,550 litre/hectare). The US consumes about 7.3 billion barrels of petroleum annually, the world about 37 billion. Given the highest yield above, sugarcane (which has a limited growing zone), substituting for all petroleum use would require somewhat over 2 billion acres. That's ... somewhat ... less than the total present arable land on Earth, but keep in mind that fuel crops would displace food crops, that we're working from the best option (soybean or sunflower would require better than 10x as much land), and that agriculture itself is quite energy intensive, with most present crops requiring more energy input than is delivered.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago

As far as I know, biofuels could never replace the current usage. The amount of land and water required would be prohibitive. See: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economics-biofuels https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economics-biofue...

dredmorbius 3y ago

No, biofuels are not an option, not at the present scale of fossil fuel consumption, or at any likely increase in net fuel consumption which would reflect the rest of the world rising to a modest fraction of US/EU per capita energy consumption. Realise that we shifted from biofuels to fossil fuels in the 19th and early 20th centuries because the energy-fueled technologically-driven economic growth people wanted simply wasn't possible with agriculturally-based energy systems. In 1900, the US devoted a fifth of its grain supply to transportation, in the form of horse feed. Henry Ford experimented with alcohol-based automobiles. Ultimately large petroleum finds (Spindletop, the East Texas Oil Field, and Ghawar in Saudi Arabia) demonstrated that petroleum would be a reliable fuel source for the foreseeable future. Biofuel yields vary, and some of the higher claims remain largely theoretical (grasses, pickleweed, and algae particularly). Demonstrated biofuel productivity from crops such as soybean, sunflower, and sugarcane range around 48--63, 63--90, and 700 gallons/acre (about 450--590, 590--840, and 6,550 litre/hectare). The US consumes about 7.3 billion barrels of petroleum annually, the world about 37 billion. Given the highest yield above, sugarcane (which has a limited growing zone), substituting for all petroleum use would require somewhat over 2 billion acres. That's ... somewhat ... less than the total present arable land on Earth, but keep in mind that fuel crops would displace food crops, that we're working from the best option (soybean or sunflower would require better than 10x as much land), and that agriculture itself is quite energy intensive, with most present crops requiring more energy input than is delivered.