Why havent we started using fuel alternatives yet?

veryangryman

Hi all,

With the price hikes of petrol and especially Diesel, i think its fair to say were all feeling the pinch and then some.

My question is this; Why the fck are the government not encouraging more use of alternative fuels like biofuels etc. Surely it makes sense for the provider (money spinner), the consumer (money saver) and the environment.

I know it cant happen overnight, but like...am i the only one who thinks they should get the finger out.

I just am getting fed up driving by my local petrol station every Friday and seeing a further 2c hike. It really kills your buzz heading into the long weekend.

Does anyone have any explanation why nothing seems to be being done? I know that not many countries are employing biofuel yet, but fk them; lets look after ourselves. Imagine how catastrophic it would be now if we had say, an outbreak of Foot and Mouth anytime soon to go along with it. Economy is being crippled, and i for one, would like something to be done while its salvageable...

thefinalstage

Because bio fuels potentially do more damage then regular alternatives. They require huge areas to grow the plant to make the fuel and after a few years they sap all the nutrients and turn the soil to desert.

Phester

Considering that Bio fuels are made from ordinary plant matter then it should be no different than regular agg farming. with field rotation after x number of seasons. I think that Ireland would be already experienced in that area to know how to do it without damaging the soil.

Only thing that I would be weary of is if it is makes more money for the farmers than regular veg/dairy farming then more farmers will do it and so the demand for certain vegs will increase leading to higher shop prices

ejmaztec

Yes, it pis5es me off as well. The writing was on the wall when the West got shafted in the early 70s by the OPEC members, especially those in the middle-east. As far as I can see, a minimal amount has been done to come up with any viable fuel alternative for the masses. The oil companies are loaded to the eye-balls with money and they are so influential and eager to hang on to their power, I'm certain that they're the ones holding back the alternatives. The oil companies together have more power than any individual country on the planet. They wont let anybody compete against them, even if they were down to their last half-litre of oil. Now, if someone could invent a battery the size of a shirt-button, that would power a car for 12 months without a re-charge, there wouldn't be one westerner left in the middle-east as they would have no reason to be there. The sheikhs could then kiss their own arses.

One of the excuses for there being world food shortages is that too much land is being used in the bio-fuel industry compared with that needed to feed people. If this is the case, we're soon going to be gone like the dinosaurs.:(

ongarite

To grow enough biofuels to fuel the planet would take all the available planting area x6 that we currently have and cause who knows what damage to the envoirenment.

Also food prices would sky rocket and they currently are and billions of people could die in asia and the third world.

IMO, biofuels are waste of time. Sounds good in theory.

axer

ongarite wrote: »

IMO, biofuels are waste of time. Sounds good in theory.

+1

I think the electric car (and possibly hybrid) is the only (by only I mean main) way forward. Having a electric car means that power generation can be centralised which can possibly come from renewable energy sources. I'd say the only way to sustain the extra power demand would be nuclear power plants though. You can't win either way.

I think it is great that the prices are going up now already (before the oil actually starts running out) as it is definitely getting people to think about their car use etc and it is also getting people thinking about alternatives to petrol/diesel.

Ya think the price is bad here - it is €1.53+ a litre in germany and still rising regularly. Its funny to hear the americans giving out about the cost of petrol there when it is twice as expensive here.

thefinalstage

axer wrote: »

+1

I think the electric car (and possibly hybrid) is the only (by only I mean main) way forward. Having a electric car means that power generation can be centralised which can possibly come from renewable energy sources. I'd say the only way to sustain the extra power demand would be nuclear power plants though. You can't win either way.

I think it is great that the prices are going up now already (before the oil actually starts running out) as it is definitely getting people to think about their car use etc and it is also getting people thinking about alternatives to petrol/diesel.

Ya think the price is bad here - it is €1.53+ a litre in germany and still rising regularly. Its funny to hear the americans giving out about the cost of petrol there when it is twice as expensive here.

Nuclear power is actually incredibly clean. A well maintained plant will produce less pollutants relative to power output then a coal or oil plant.

jimmycrackcorm

thelastangryman wrote: »

Nuclear power is actually incredibly clean. A well maintained plant will produce less pollutants relative to power output then a coal or oil plant.

We could go nuclear power and set up an infrastructure to support the use of electric vehicles except for the country being full of NIMBY's.

Idiots. When we finally have the sudden oil crisis where we can't get enough of it or it's too expensive, I'll be going round hammering those people I know who objected to having a nuclear power station.

Wertz

thelastangryman wrote: »

Nuclear power is actually incredibly clean.

Sure it is...

RATM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

We could go nuclear power and set up an infrastructure to support the use of electric vehicles except for the country being full of NIMBY's.

Idiots. When we finally have the sudden oil crisis where we can't get enough of it or it's too expensive, I'll be going round hammering those people I know who objected to having a nuclear power station.

If we have a government who cant even get a simple proposition like e-voting correct would you hold much confidence for that same government taking charge of storing nuclear waste for the next 100,000 years? We've already seen the ball-up that is Sellafield, do you really want to see that on our own doorstep too?

1huge1

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

We could go nuclear power and set up an infrastructure to support the use of electric vehicles except for the country being full of NIMBY's.

Idiots. When we finally have the sudden oil crisis where we can't get enough of it or it's too expensive, I'll be going round hammering those people I know who objected to having a nuclear power station.

Agreed the countru is full of clueless narrow minded people who when they hear anything about nuclear all they think about is

''oh but look what happened in chernobyl''

thefinalstage

Wertz wrote: »

Sure it is...

Many,many years of waste mismanagement and corner cutting. Any relative point?

Wertz

That that's the sort of legacy left afterward? Irregardless of the cesspools which wouldn't be allowed now (of course they probably weren't allowed then either until the cost of dealing with the waste first raised it's ugly head), it's the reactors themselves that are so costly to decommission...never mind the cost of building them and running them for 2-3 decades and still being left with the waste to babysit for a few millennia...no matter how you manage it, you can't help but create it. Newer cores may be more efficient and better designed but the principle remains that they produce the same types of waste, that have either to be stored or re-processed, and still have the problems of decommissioning in the future
I'll be the first to agree with you that we need alternative energy (or else getting geared up for a widescale reduction on our use of energy), not for the bloody carbon emissions but for finite supply reasons...I simply don't think that nuclear is a good gamble in the long term, even if it can meet our demands relatively quickly. Realistically it's the most viable and ready option, unless someone manages to get fusion going in the meatime, but it doesn't come without risks and downsides...

Nuclear power is actually incredibly clean

In terms of carbon and soot/ash emissions, yes....but clean? Only when you sweep the waste under the carpet someplace. The cost to efficiently reprocess and recycle is huge along with the inherent pollution problems particuarly with water used in the process, but if you don't pay to re-use you end up with waste that needs to be stored safely, indefinitely...and even if you do pay the sums involved to keep re-using, eventually much more dnagerous radioisotopes occur in the spent fuel that are even harder to deal with.

stink_fist

Because biofuels cost more to run, are worse in the long run (be it with food crisis's or the environment) and we are stuck in our old ways.

craichoe

1. Biofuels are not a sustainable alternative at the moment, using every single piece of Agricultural land in the UK you could run Heathrow, thats it ... just Heathrow.

Source:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/chemistry_chief_biofuel_bash/

Heathrow airport alone averaged more than 600 takeoffs a day in 2006. According to Dr Pike, then, roughly speaking all the farmland in the UK would produce enough biofuel for Heathrow airport's needs as of the year before last, with a small surplus.

2. The Diesel engine was originally designed to run on Peanut oil. It was developed by Rudolf Diesel in the 1880's to run on alternative fuel, however at the time extracting crude from the ground and making a Fossil alternative was cheaper at the time hence the Petroleum companies refined a Fossil Fuel alternative called 'Diesel' after that Rudolf bloke.

3. Diesel powered aircraft have been around since the late 20s, its not a new thing, the technology has always been there.

4. Using Biofuels in a third world country would starve the local population, as crops would be worth more as fuel than food.

Also, its completely up to you, you can use Biofuels if you want. Just get a standard Diesel engined car and run it on Veggie oil, i was doing this in my Octavia with no problems on at 1.9 TDI, worked out at roughly 67c /litre, your still supposed to declare this to the revenue of course. Purchased my Veggie oil in Lidl.

So, its still your choice if you want to run on Bio-Fuels, you can, the Government shouldn't have to tell you to do it.

jimmycrackcorm

RATM wrote: »

If we have a government who cant even get a simple proposition like e-voting correct would you hold much confidence for that same government taking charge of storing nuclear waste for the next 100,000 years? We've already seen the ball-up that is Sellafield, do you really want to see that on our own doorstep too?

Are you really trying to compare the lack of a shop paper till roll in voting machines to management of nuclear waste?

Try imagining a life without your ewe wheatabix in the morning for starters - literally.