----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan M" <[email protected]> To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:12 PM Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of xponentrob >> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:09 AM >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion >> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? >> >> > >> > If there's biofuel technology that doesn't significantly impact the >> > food stream as a source of motor vehicle fuel, then I'm all for it. >> > I'm not anywhere near PC myself, and if there's a GMO solution that >> > actually does provide a decent rate of return without investing more >> > energy in getting energy out of the fuel produced or cut too deeply >> > into the food supply, great. Hadn't heard of this. >> > >> >> These days I'm looking cynically at biofuels. they do nothing to >> reduce CO2 levels in most cases (most applications are for ICE), > > I'm not sure I follow you here. Present biofuels are bad, they divert > food > into products that have low net energy out per energy unit in. I have no > problem with that argument. But, under lab conditions they've gotten over > 1000x the yield of corn. That isn't what I was addressing actually. Present biofuels (FTMP) take carbon out of the air when being grown and then dump it right back into the atmosphere when being used. Worse, they take frex, sulpher out of the ground and it either gets into the atmosphere or into sequestration where it could also escape as a form of pollution. Remember that my stance against CO2 is that it is a pollutant, primarily. Greenhouse effects are a secondary consideration for me. > > Now, there are problems with the algae; it's especially susceptible to > fungi > attacks. But, with bioengineering costs dropping a factor of two per > year, > this appears to be an area that can be tweaked, one way or another. It > would be akin to knowing you needed a megaflop machine to get your work > done > back in '76....Moore's law would make you optimistic. Battery performance > has progressed at a much slower rate. > Agreed. With biofuels my concerns are that they will mostly be used in ICE which are very inefficient at *using* energy. With batteries, it seems to me that having an energy source that fits the need is is of greater import than having an excess of stored energy to burn (such as is the situation with liquid hydrocarbon fuels). What I'm trying to say is that with some improvement in battery technology we will have a system that fits transportation needs in most cases, as opposed to the "one size fits all cases and damn the waste" system we currently employ. Biofuels do not change the equation too much if we are going to continue employing ICEs. > > >> but there is some hope for a good fuel for Fuel Cells > > That is another possibility for energy storage for cars I would prefer Biofuels be used in Fuel Cell cars. It is a much more efficient use of the stored energy. > > >>and there *will* be a long term need for diesels. > > More critically for biofuel: aviation. It will be a long time before a > battery can power a 777 for 8000 miles. > You are correct sir! I was thinking more along the lines of Trains and 18 wheelers. I think it unlikely that batteries will be able to do much more than moderate energy use with very heavy and flying vehicles. xponent Commerce Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
