6 ms·
Sugarcane. There are still problems with any plant-based biofuels, but they're problems with scaling, crop rotation, pesticides, and the current state of the a
by mr_luc 14y ago
Sugarcane.
There are still problems with any plant-based biofuels, but they're problems with scaling, crop rotation, pesticides, and the current state of the art of ag in countries where sugarcane is grown.
But the energy return of sugarcane ethanol is high enough to make it non-silly.
- niels_olson 14y agoCompared to solar, they're all silly. You live the glow a giant nuclear reactor, so large it is contained only by its own gravity. A .01% yield on the energy incident on earth would power everything we ever need.
- raverbashing 14y agoExcept for nuclear, geothermal and tidal wave generation (and other lesser used energy sources) all energy in planet Earth is solar, accumulated during different time frames. Sure, solar is great, except current technology is really bad at using it.
- Evbn 14y agoAn obvious distinction is between accumulated past stored solar, which is finite, vs ongoing rate of harvesting new solar.
- johnrgrace 14y agoSolar has one really great aspect, it can be installed easily at the point of use. Tranporting power on the grid results in a lot of loss, by being at the point of demand solar gets an instant bump in terms of value.
- gabemart 14y ago>A .01% yield on the energy incident on earth would power everything we ever need. This sounds like the Chinese soda analogy [1] in a different form. The fact that we only need 0.01% doesn't indicate the ease of capturing 0.01% in the form of usable energy. [1] http://lake.blogs.com/my_weblog/2006/05/the_chinese_sod.html http://lake.blogs.com/my_weblog/2006/05/the_chinese_sod.html
- corporalagumbo 14y agoA .01% yield on the energy incident on earth would power everything we ever need. I can never understand why people trot out this sentiment. Humans are a biological species subject to normal ecological principles. One of those principles is that, in the absence of a limiting factor in our environment, we will grow. If energy availability is removed as a limiting factor, we will grow ("gettin' larger in waist and taste") until it is again. Anyone who pretends otherwise has not stepped outside to notice all the millions/billions of people clamouring for food, clean water, jobs, holidays, new computers, clothes, homes, education, etc etc. Imagining that, unlike every time in the past where human societies have chafed against resource limits and hoped that just a little more would fix everything, this time human needs will finally be satisfied, is the oldest fallacy in the book. It's just not how life works. You live in a valley full of aurochs, horses, and boars, more than any man could eat. Taking just a fraction of these bountiful riches would give us all the food we could ever need.
- Evbn 14y agoCrowding and water could constrain is before solar energy does.
- svdad 14y agoI think we'd all be better off if energy, rather than space or water, were the limiting factor.
- Someone 14y agoWater? With unlimited ultra cheap energy, there is plenty of sweet water in the oceans. On the other hand: what is stopping us now from combining salt evaporation ponds with sweet water production in e.g. the coastal regions of the Sahara?
- raverbashing 14y agoHumans don't eat electricity or oil. Sure, they may be used to increase yields of harvests, but the limitation is still how fast plants grow and how much area they need.