Really? Never took a physics class?

[Triple J]

They don't need to use potable water.... there's plenty of waste water wherever there's settlement.

Good point...I didn't think of that.   

[OwnyTony]

Good point...I didn't think of that.   

I agree with your stance that you made earlier triple as to using water for fuel can bring a water shortage (what i was stating).  Even if they use non potable water, where is this non potable water coming from?  our toilets?  I still say that since the water cycle is a dynamic process, there will be some strain on the fresh water supply.

[Pakhan]

Any future fuel source will have to be considered carefully whether it's water or biofuel since they both have limitations

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7525613.stm

[ducatiz]

Any future fuel source will have to be considered carefully whether it's water or biofuel since they both have limitations

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7525613.stm

Biodiesel is a far better fuel than almost any other.  Diesel can be made from any leftover crops available, whether or not it is a food source.    Pine trees and hemp are an excellent source of oil (and if using pine, everything will smell so clean).    Hemp is a much better source since it produces far more oil per acre and it grows much quicker and requires much less water than anything else.

Ethanol from biomass (i.e. corn stalks or peanut plants, both not used for food) is also a decent source of fuel, because the harvesting is already done (for the food crops) and thus reduces the enviro impact.  The problem is that converting biomass to ethanol is much more energy intensive than converting anything to biodiesel. 

Also, using leftover or waste food crops for biodiesel means it's already harvested, so the impact is lessened there as well.

Instead of selling all that grain to Cuba, we should just use it for biodiesel.  Let the caribe communists rot.

[Triple J]

I agree with your stance that you made earlier triple as to using water for fuel can bring a water shortage (what i was stating).  Even if they use non potable water, where is this non potable water coming from?  our toilets?  I still say that since the water cycle is a dynamic process, there will be some strain on the fresh water supply.

Typically treated water from wastewater treatment plants, called effluent, is discharged into large bodies of water which are not used for drinking water.  For instance, coastal cities discharge into the ocean and bays.  Because of this I don't see it affecting the potable water supply.

The only exception that I am aware of is the Los Angeles area, where highly treated effluent is discharged back into one of their water supply reservoirs.  They are the only place which does this AFAIK, and it is also a relatively new practice. Their main plant still discharges into the Pacific...and there is another deep ocean outfall currently being designed to do the same.

[OwnyTony]

Biodiesel is a far better fuel than almost any other.  Diesel can be made from any leftover crops available, whether or not it is a food source.    Pine trees and hemp are an excellent source of oil (and if using pine, everything will smell so clean).    Hemp is a much better source since it produces far more oil per acre and it grows much quicker and requires much less water than anything else.

Ethanol from biomass (i.e. corn stalks or peanut plants, both not used for food) is also a decent source of fuel, because the harvesting is already done (for the food crops) and thus reduces the enviro impact.  The problem is that converting biomass to ethanol is much more energy intensive than converting anything to biodiesel. 

Also, using leftover or waste food crops for biodiesel means it's already harvested, so the impact is lessened there as well.

Instead of selling all that grain to Cuba, we should just use it for biodiesel.  Let the caribe communists rot.

I still dont like the idea of turning food into oil.  It uses two resources.  First, the most obvious is the food.  Second is the usage of water to grow it.  We all have this perception that water is infinite.  I mean, we just turn a valve and it just gushes out.

Sort of reminds me of something I heard.  When children from "civilized" countries are confronted with children from the third world, the "civilized" children can not fathom why the children from the third world are hungry and are starving.  They think that all you have to do is open the refrigerator and feed your self.   That is pretty ignorant and that is how I feel a lot of people view the resources we have today; which we have used technology to make them readily available to us. 
But we must remember that Just because technology makes it easier to get does not mean that the resources are not scarce/limited.   

[OwnyTony]

Typically treated water from wastewater treatment plants, called effluent, is discharged into large bodies of water which are not used for drinking water.  For instance, coastal cities discharge into the ocean and bays.  Because of this I don't see it affecting the potable water supply.

The only exception that I am aware of is the Los Angeles area, where highly treated effluent is discharged back into one of their water supply reservoirs.  They are the only place which does this AFAIK, and it is also a relatively new practice. Their main plant still discharges into the Pacific...and there is another deep ocean outfall currently being designed to do the same.

Like someone mentioned here/posted a hyperlink to an article.  Just because the water is not potable does not mean that it can be used without consequence.  The article mentioned that wetlands are threated by the increase usage of water.  Just because we dont use it for drinking does not mean other organic things dont use it.  If that water ends up in our gas tanks instead of being used by other organic life, we will just start another problem. 

Also, I know what most plants do with the treated water.  They purify it to about 95% purity and dump it into some natural water way/river/lakes.  there are some projects where they try to use this water and send it to some wetlands where naturally they are purified by nature step by step in hopes that it will become potable again.  Did something like that on a small scale in science class years ago.   

[Popeye the Sailor]

I still dont like the idea of turning food into oil.  It uses two resources.  First, the most obvious is the food.  Second is the usage of water to grow it.  We all have this perception that water is infinite.  I mean, we just turn a valve and it just gushes out.
 

He also mentioned using leftover plants of non-food items as a fuel source. What's wrong with that? Going to miss your daily dosage of corn stalks? They are something that would be grown either way, just now, put to better use.

[NAKID]

What do they currently do with the corn stalks after harvest?

[Popeye the Sailor]

What do they currently do with the corn stalks after harvest?

Halloween decorations, and probably much needed compost.


Shush now.

[OwnyTony]

He also mentioned using leftover plants of non-food items as a fuel source. What's wrong with that? Going to miss your daily dosage of corn stalks? They are something that would be grown either way, just now, put to better use.

Im not completely against it.  Being efficient and using our resources effectively is a good thing.  Better use of products that we once considered as waste but now using them as resources is wonderful.  The thing is, one of my focal points has been the use of water.

The problem become this, "over growing" corn so that we can use its corn stocks for fuel. This takes water.  I must point out that in this particular example, there are two demands here or two principles of thought. 
The two demands are food for our stomach and food for our cars.  Lets establish a model where fuel is ONLY made by the byproducts of corn, the stuff we can not eat. The overriding demand that should control the end result of how much corn should be planted within this model should be the demand for food.  In no time or rather I BELIEVE that in no time should the demand for fuel ever affect this model. 

Think about the principle of the model, The reason why i set it up where fuel can only be made from the byproducts is to shut up people like me that do not like the idea of replacing food on the table to put fuel in the car. 

The problem arises when the demand for fuel is greater than the byproducts produced from the demand for food.  One "crafty" way to meet this demand is to increase corn production so that you can have the byproduct to meet this demand, all the while not using the actual food for fuel.  I mean, we arent using the actual FOOD for fuel so people like me, STUF~!  The principle behind this thought/justification is just messed up.  And people like me cant really say much because our original argument is that we did not like using food for fuel and that condition is being met but it is being met at a cost. 

That cost is the scarce resource of water.  Things are dynamic and the solution is not always simple.

[Ducatiloo]

What do they currently do with the corn stalks after harvest?

Bedding for animals

[ducatiz]

I still dont like the idea of turning food into oil.  It uses two resources.  First, the most obvious is the food.  Second is the usage of water to grow it.  We all have this perception that water is infinite.  I mean, we just turn a valve and it just gushes out.

which is the beauty of biodiesel.  you can produce it from any crop or almost any oil-producing plant.

and as far as water goes, you are making the assumption that the target crop is irrigated.  many "Christmas tree" farms are not irrigated, they just plant them so the trees are harvested in a 4 year cycle and use rainwater.  the same type of thing could be done for biodiesel using hemp and pine trees -- use a quarter of the growing field, harvest it every four years.  each year, plant a different quarter.

Sort of reminds me of something I heard.  When children from "civilized" countries are confronted with children from the third world, the "civilized" children can not fathom why the children from the third world are hungry and are starving.  They think that all you have to do is open the refrigerator and feed your self.   That is pretty ignorant and that is how I feel a lot of people view the resources we have today; which we have used technology to make them readily available to us. 
But we must remember that Just because technology makes it easier to get does not mean that the resources are not scarce/limited.   

shit happens. that's why it sucks to be poor.  if poor people could eat from the fridge, then no one would bother working and developing wealth and education.  thank God for civilization.  groups of people incapable of developing civilizations are just that -- uncivilized.  Tocqueville said people get the government (society) they deserve.  which i don't say to be mean, but not every group on this planet has evolved at the same rate.

[OwnyTony]

shit happens. that's why it sucks to be poor.  if poor people could eat from the fridge, then no one would bother working and developing wealth and education.  thank God for civilization.  groups of people incapable of developing civilizations are just that -- uncivilized.  Tocqueville said people get the government (society) they deserve.  which i don't say to be mean, but not every group on this planet has evolved at the same rate.

I think your missing my point.  It is not an "Us vs Them" thing.  It show how ignorant, stupid and naive the civilized children are.  They have no sense of reality.  They are taking things for granted.  It hints at entitlement. 

I like to think that I am self aware.  maybe you dont get it like I do (not to say that you dont have the capacity).  To be honest, i use to think the same way as the civilized children did in regards to food.  Then one day i realized how stupid i was for thinking like that. 

[ducatiz]

I think your missing my point. It is not an "Us vs Them" thing. It show how ignorant, stupid and naive the civilized children are.  They have no sense of reality.  They are taking things for granted.  It hints at entitlement. 

I like to think that I am self aware.  maybe you dont get it like I do (not to say that you dont have the capacity).  To be honest, i use to think the same way as the civilized children did in regards to food.  Then one day i realized how stupid i was for thinking like that.

So it's not an "us vs them" but the "them" are stupid and you're not?  Hmm...

at some point, everyone will realize that resources on this planet are finite.  and then the "us vs them" thing will just be a matter of survival.

Peak oil by definition means that oil is finite, if you subscribe to that belief.

Other energy sources are problematic unless they are strictly controlled by rationing or price.  Coal CAN be clean burning, but I seriously doubt if those plants in China are clean. 

Therefore, pollution and clean air becomes a scarce resource.

Solar is currently inefficient and doesn't produce enough output for the cost.

Wind farms use HUGE amounts of land -- so where do people live?  In high-rises and high-density housing of course.  Time to bulldoze the Rockefeller estate?  It's a waste of land.

Any kind of internal combustion, petrol, diesel, ethanol, produces pollution and uses resources of some kind.

Point is, human history is ALWAYS "us vs them" regarding resources, whether land, water, oil, gold, women, etc.  That's just the nature of life.

Really.  It is.