stanford experts et al say abandoned land in world should be used for energy crops

[poopfuel]

http://www.enn.com/business/article/37483

But this won't make front page news anywhere. Only negative news about biofuels does. Wonder why.

[Captain Angry]

1. Or, they could put wind/solar on that land.

Rather than eat up more topsoil and water, we could put some other energy generation systems there.

We need to get off of fuel, and going to energy crop based fuel or biofuels just puts that off. As the plug in hybrids hit the market in the next few years, and eventually the full electrics, we can really start to reduce the fuel that we consume and move off of the dirty power sources.

[poopfuel]

2. dear captain, check out this link

Electrics keep you dependent on big utilities and big systems. Let's get off all that. Let's keep it small, see how in link below.
Only energy cropping can help us reduce carbon dioxide emissions and reverse global warming. Wind and solar can't do that. Go to biopact.com for more info, put "carbon negative" in your search terms.

http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com?bid=2&aid=CD8&opt=

[Captain Angry]

3. Haven't clicked yet, but...

Wind/solar don't use land that could be used for food. They don't need water after the fact. It can be generated at a homesite.

Biofuels means that supply, transport, storage all need to continue. The grid is already in existence, and would let homesite generation put energy on the grid for use by other people.

Once produced, wind/solar equipment no longer pollute. And they can last 30 years.

You don't think that big-Agriculture would become the next "oil" companies if biofuels were to be the next big thing? No, I think we need to stop using water and soil just to set the product on fire so a car can move.

[izquierdista]

4. Both of you need to be slapped

Alternatives to fossil fuels need to come from ALL sources, not just the one that you think is the coolest. Wind, solar, geothermal, AND biofuels have a place in the future -- and maybe even tides and ocean currents, and others not yet thought of. :spank:

[Captain Angry]

5. Many sources are better than fewer, I agree.

But of all of the sources you cite, only biofuels requires active processing and inputs to produce in the next season. They need to be harvested, labor and equipment must be used.

Wind, solar, geo, tidal currents only need to have their equipment deployed once and after that, repaired once in a while.

[poopfuel]

6. you're right but

I don't regard carbon-negative energy as "Cool"
I regard as necessary to the survival of our planet. What solutions do you have to the greenhouse effect?
Check out what I'm reading and get back to me.
Likewise to you, Captain.

[f the letter]

7. The debate on biofuel vs solar vs wind vs geothermal is empty:

Neither any one of them nor a combination of all of them is going to allow for current energy consumption, let alone the consumption that is projected for the future at this rate of population growth and industrialization. That goes for including nuclear, geothermal, water/wave, algae biomass, and billions of hamsters on wheels. The real problem is demand, and we have to wake up and realize that our unsustainable energy use can't be made sustainable by grasping at straws.

Further, all of these fuels are not oil alternatives but actually oil products. The energy required to produce solar panels, wind turbines, or nuclear power plants is HUGE, and comes 100% from oil and natural gas. Even if you reduce that percentage to 75% or less, you're still talking about using a prodigious amount of fossil fuel. The rare metals required for solar/wind power have to be hunted down, mined, smelted, refined, refined further, made into wires or wafers and/ incorporated into the overall device. These process don't occur in one place and often don't occur in one country, so add to this the shipping about of various materials, by trucks and planes and ships.

More on this : http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net .

i am absolutely not arguing against expanding these forms of energy. We need them, and they are to be particularly necessary in the near term. But it doesn't matter what energy sources we combine, because humans are using too damn much energy. Without changing the impossibly high demand, there's nothing we can do.

[kristopher]

9. This is one of the most uninformed posts I've yet seen on EE.

How did you arrive at these conclusions? While there are perhaps one or two kernals of factual information included, the way you've woven it into a picture of the circumstances is absolutely fascinating.

Please explain more fully.

[NickB79]

8. So, another "plow under conservation land and all the wildlife in it" statements

Not surprising.