# Why are we using fossil fuels?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Calvin, Dec 13, 2004.

1. ### CalvinTeach the americans!!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
72
What is the problem with Bio-diesel?

3. ### AthelwulfRest in peace Kurt...Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,060
I don't know what bio-diesel is, but I think we're still using fossil fuels kuz it's the cheapest form of energy currently available to us.

I assume ya were asking a question in the title of this thread.

5. ### marvJust a dumb hillbilly...Registered Senior Member

Messages:
743
Diesel engines polute too much. It's a technology problem - doesn't matter what kind of fuel. What's wrong with nuclear?

7. ### LensmanZ313Mad Idiot SavantRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
35

Here, try this website: www.changingworldtech.com. Read up on Thermal Depolymerization. It's the answer, I believe . . . .

8. ### hypatiaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
71
In the US, we are using fossil fuels largely because the people in power in this country have financial ties to the petroleum industry, and hence a vested interest in perpetuating their consumption.

Another reason is simply inertia: we've been using them for a long time now and they work reasonably well, so we'll continue to use them until there is a compelling reason not to.

But the technology for the use of alternative fuel sources is there. Sun, wind, water, hydrogen, and plant-derived ethanol can all be exploited for power using currently available technology. We just need politicians motivated enough to allocate some money to R&D so we can make these alternative sources cheap and ubiquitous enough to compete with fossil fuels.

9. ### CalvinTeach the americans!!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
72
yea but biodeisel is already available. you can make it in a blender at your house and burn it in a convential diesel engine (they were built for it). The cost is considerably less and the emissions are cleaner. i was just wondering if anybody knows if its effect on the engine itself?

Messages:
4,467

17. ### extrasenseRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
551
Cheap is best! You are blindly repeating anti American communist slogans.

1 pct of increase in vegetation is equivalent reduction of emission by 40 pct.

e

s

18. ### OphioliteValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,232
What if we like "blindly repeating anti American communist slogans", just as much as you like blindly reacting to them?

19. ### esdRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
36
To replace fossil fuels with bio-diesel would require so much biomass that there would NONE left for eating. All wildlife would have to go as well.

You can read some more in here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/67047

20. ### ApocalypticFloodRegistered Member

Messages:
3
i havnt been in this forum since 02.. and i remember this same topic being talked about!

21. ### ClockwoodYou Forgot PolandRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,467
I started in 02 and I remember this coming up at least four times.

22. ### RomanBannedBanned

Messages:
11,560
I attended a lecture by this guy who started The land Institute. It turns out that biodiesel, at best, has a 1.6% return on the energy we put into it (For every 100 dollars of biodiesel we manufacture, we get 101.6 dollars back), but most likely, biodiesel has a negative return. That means it takes more energy to grow and manufacture biodiesel than we get out of it.

We could lessen our environmental impact (and energy requirements) by recycling more. For instance, waste products from fisheries could be turned into fertilizer, or organic waste from farms could be converted to alcohol or biodiesel to run farm machinery.

23. ### LavaLet discovery flowRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
156
These analyses are typically full of debateable assumptions, missing factors, and deliberate bias. Unless you can supply an analysis that turns out to stand up to scrutiny (few do), that figure has to be open to doubt.

Turning WVO into biodiesel take very little work or resources, but there isnt anything like enough WVO (waste vegetable oil) to make a serious contribution to a nationwide transport fleet. On a personal level you can get plenty of fuel that way, but not nationwide.

That leaves growing plants to extract the oil to make biodiesel, which is indeed not an efficient process at present. There might, or might not, be ways to change that.

Possibly. One of the reasons we dont recycle more is that it isnt always cost effective or energy effective to do so. It is an area that needs more input. Of course its not the only reason.

TDP looks like a very promising recycling tool. Thermal depolymerisation turns all sorts of unsorted waste crap into fuel oil and other usefuls, and has a net energy output as well.

Lava