lets not forget that we are already deforresting the planet for meat production and lumber and paper production.

Then add in the fact that farmed trees do not create an ecosystem and stop producing useable timber after only a few generations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The solution is Hemp and we can run on both Hemp oil and the cellulose from the stalks..

The energy ration from Hemp is way greater than that derived from corn..

The way Brazil now runs on sugar cane we can run of Hemp..

Also we can grow it in every state of the union even Alaska..

We just have to get over the stupid social prejudices that are bankrupting us..as a nation..

Simple as that..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cellulosic biofuels may be good for fueling farm implements and busses but any attempt to fuel the transportation status quo would result in catastrophy. People need to get some sense of the volume of oil it takes to run our cars and aircraft.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This opinion is a little immature. Ethanol and bio-diesel were never intended to solve the energy crisis. They can only offset some of the carbon spewing from our gas tanks and allow for a gradual transition to a more efficient society. I don't like the idea of waiting around for the perfect solution while the climate warms up. Plant-based fuel is a band-aid at best but there are few immediate alternatives. If we're concern about other countries cutting forests to grow fuel crops then our importing rules need to be remedied. Though I don't see why we would import ethanol at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your premise is as flawed as blaming a victim for the crime committed against them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please stop speaking up on this topic, you are probably infecting others with your ignorance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The low carbon source of the electricity has to be nuclear
to replace the base load capacity of coal.
Read: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros
TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France;
ISBN 2-914190-02-6

ORDER FROM THIS PLACE ONLY: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
You will not find it elsewhere.

Its simple language makes the book suitable as a PRIMER
FOR HIGH SCHOOL CLASSES, teacher training courses, or
environmental discussion groups.

Read a review of this book by the American Health Physics Society at:
http://www.comby.org/media/
articles/articles.in.english/
HealthPhysics-NUC-July2002.htm

www.ecolo.org
Association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy [EFN]

AT A TIME when most of the media and politicians seem to be
brainwashed by antinuclear cults, it is refreshing to encounter a
book that presents the issues regarding nuclear energy in a clear
and dispassionate manner. In plain NON-TECHNICAL
LANGUAGE, the author, a French environmentalist trained as a
nuclear engineer, presents a primer, in large letters, of the
essential facts regarding all the major areas of controversy about
nuclear power.

Nuclear power is 30% cheaper than the coal power we have been
duped into using. We have 5000 years worth of nuclear fuel if
we recycle it rather than waste it as we do now. Nuclear is also
the safest, cleanest and cheapest form of energy available.

The French nuclear power industry is socialized, government
owned. Socialism isn't bad in all cases. Government employees
are good at following rules. To make nuclear power safe and
profitable, the rules must be followed. We can make nuclear
power work for us too. All we have to do is follow the French
example. The French government receives royalties from the
French nuclear power industry. It works for the taxpayers. Of
course the Republicans are afraid of the French model because the
French people pay 30% LESS for their electricity than we pay for
our electricity. France recycles nuclear fuel for many countries, at a profit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You were quite right to address the matter because it could cause a massive deforestation if used wildly and under no responsible management. The solution has been since the ethanol existed from the age of the beginning of vehicles last century, but not economically feasable due to the cheap oil prices at the time. Now the responsible solution is by using the fastest grown tree in the world(1 Year)Paulownia Elongata Super Select produced in vitro from the embrionary tissue with 8 automatic growing cycles. We at World Paulownia Institute www.worldpaulownia.com can elaborate and prove the facts on the matter. Antonio at ajpmaga@gmail.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

no one with a brain in their head is advocating chopping down the rain forest to make ethanol.

grain chaff, rice straw, corn cob and other forms of biobass are routinely tossed into landfill dumps - we can use this biomass to create hydrogen and turn it into fuel to run a fuel cell battery to run a car, machine, factories, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The core of the problem is our mentality and our antiquated transportation system. What is required is a ground-up revamping of our personal and public transportation system that is both economic (0on many levels) and not fuel-based. A beginning would be to organize a way in which most folks can operate from a home-based system. That is already technologicy possible and feasible and only depends on a minor shift in our perspective. Additionaly, purchasing items such as food, etc. must be accomodated without having to travel around (short of "beaming" it up, I am not entirely certain how that might be designed but a genius or two might well figure it out). You get the picture. The whole system must be transformed. The current concept of "patchwork" solutions like biofuels requires that the system persists as it is, thereby multiplying already persisting problems and re-enforcing our dependency on vehicular transport.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This book explains the best reasons for being against biofuel.
Gaia is the "living organism of earth." Gaia is the sum total of all
the life on the planet plus the planet itself. Gaia regulates the
climate and other things to keep the earth habitable. This may
seem like a quasi-religious idea and hocus pocus, but it is
becoming accepted among life scientists and related fields. The
thing that is wrong with biofuel is that Gaia needs wilderness
areas to regulate the climate and the other things needed to keep
the earth habitable. We already use up enormous land area for
farming. Using the rest of the available land to grow biofuel
would take away Gaia's ability to keep the earth habitable. The
result would be that Gaia would make Homo Sapiens extinct. I
have already posted how this would be accomplished many times
elsewhere in Alternet.org/environment.

Dr. James Lovelock is the inventor of the Gaia concept and was a
consultant to NASA on the Viking mission that looked for life on
Mars. He has written more than 200 scientific papers and several
books. I recommend his books.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Renewable energy could 'rape' nature
11:10 25 July 2007
NewScientist.com news service
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/
dn12346-renewable-energy-could-rape-nature.html

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/
2007/07/renewable-energy-bad-nuclear-power-good.html

Phil McKenna
Ramping up the use of renewable energy would lead to the "rape
of nature", meaning nuclear power should be developed instead.
http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?
action=record&rec_id=14671&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or
So argues noted conservation biologist and climate change
researcher Jesse Ausubel in an opinion piece based on his and
others' research.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/
mg18925361.500-interview-be-green-think-big.html
Ausubel (who New Scientist interviewed in 2006) says the key
renewable energy sources, including sun, wind, and biomass,
would all require vast amounts of land if developed up to large
scale production – unlike nuclear power. That land would be far
better left alone, he says.
Renewables are "boutique fuels" says Ausubel, of Rockefeller
University in New York, US. "They look attractive when they are
quite small. But if we start producing renewable energy on a large
scale, the fallout is going to be horrible."
Instead, Ausubel argues for renewed development of nuclear. "If
we want to minimise the rape of nature, the best energy solution is
increased efficiency, natural gas with carbon capture, and nuclear
power."
'Massive infrastructure'
Ausubel draws his conclusions by analysing the amount of energy
renewables, natural gas, and nuclear can produce in terms of
power per square metre of land used. Moreover, he claims that as
renewable energy use increases, this measure of efficiency will
decrease as the best land for wind, biomass, and solar power gets
used up.
Using biofuels to obtain the same amount of energy as a 1000
megawatt nuclear power plant would require 2500 square
kilometres of prime Midwestern farm land, Ausubel says. "We
should be sparing land for nature, not using it as pasture for cars
and trucks," he adds.
Solar power is much more efficient than biofuel in terms of the
area of land used, but it would still require 150 square kilometres
of photovoltaic cells to match the energy production of the 1000
MW nuclear plant. In another example, he says meeting the 2005
US electricity demand via wind power alone would need 780,000
square kilometres, an area the size of Texas.
Part of the land used in Ausubel's calculations is for storage and
transportation: "Any renewable energy supply needs a massive
infrastructure, including steel, metal, pipes, cables, concrete, and
access roads."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How do coal fired power plants get ahead of transportation [cars
and other vehicles] in carbon emissions? Gasoline, diesel fuel,
etc. are half hydrogen. For example, octane is C8H18. To figure
out what fraction of the energy is from burning the carbon, you
have to look up the heat of formation of carbon dioxide and the
heat of formation of water. It takes 1 carbon to make one CO2,
but it takes 2 hydrogens to make 1 H2O. You can do the
arithmetic and apportion the energy between the carbon and the
hydrogen. You have to subtract the energy required to break
down the octane into atoms. It is easier to remove the hydrogens
than it is to separate the carbons, so the energy subtracted gets
apportioned too.
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM,
ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium,
Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium,
Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Even though
transportation uses more energy, coal fired power plants put more
CO2 into the air.

Transportation isn't even the second largest CO2 emitter.
Industrial processes are. The largest CO2 emitter of the industrial
processes is concrete making even though the energy used is less.
The first step in concrete making is heating limestone [calcium
carbonate] to drive off the carbon dioxide to make calcium oxide.
Coal is burned to make the heat, but the limestone is the greater
source of CO2. Other industrial processes include steel making,
metal casting, etc.

The easiest way to make the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions
is to convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear.

My sole source of income is my retirement annuity from the
federal government. I am telling you the above to avoid the
horrific consequences of global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We, all of humanity, have to change our awareness of energy use. For the rest of us, outside of USA, this is a smaller step than for you guys.

Several posters above obviously have the smarts on this.

The biggest problem is the addiction to the automobile, fairly closely followed by the addiction (encouraged by the pushers) to the internal combustion engine. Either electric OR External combustion is less polluting.

George Monbiot's ideas on public transport, a model for the UK, are completely correct. If you wish to examine something closer to home, the New York subway system is appropriate; or to really see lateral thinking applied to these problems, check out Curitiba, in Brazil.

500 seat, triple deck, articulated buses. Dedicated loading/ unloading stations (by the roadside) to handle the volume of people.

The city with the HIGHEST satisfaction rating in the world, from it's citizens, as a preferred place to live

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

or other like minded devices will need to be developed!

along with hydrogen based fuel cells and an AC based solar panels for power generation... [I believe this can be done by using current chip technologies and utilizing the full light spectrum throttled down to the 60hz range.]

this is all possible now... and has been known for more than a century...
AC power production can be tapped by using the full light spectrum... and horsepower can be provided using cutting edge technologies like solid oxide fuel cells... petroleum can be extremely efficient if other tech is deployed like Wenkle engines

all vehicles including aircraft need innovative rethinking... where do we start?...

how about replacing the "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT" with something that actually works... Education pays for itself... invest in the future...
Change our motivators... a capitalist system can be a serious motivator for growth and abilities but greed motivation throws us wrong leadership potentials... well over the years imho it has.

A fresh set of ideas and concepts are overdue and I imagine just around the corner.

We need leaders, innovators and dreamers!
Educate the Young for they "ARE" the future!

Stop paying corporate executives millions while the people who actually make the wealth get pennies [thats the greed motivator leadership BS that I'm talking about] which to me is actual theft from the shareholders!

change is due...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]