If Brazil can do it, why can't we???

Celany said:
If global warming continues, then we *will* be able to grow more sugar cane here.
Click to expand...
Judging from Hawaii's experience, if you're planning to plant sugar cane then you'd also better be able to hold your wage expenses down to compare favorably with Thailand & Malaysia...
 
brewer12345 said:
Uh, because sugarcane doesn't grow all that well in most of the US and labor is a lot more expensive here than it is in Brazil.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I think that a more significant factor is that we use a lot more energy than they do.

These are some old statistics but my data shows that the US uses 340 MBTU per person while Brazil only uses 29 MBTU per person.

WE USE 10x AS MUCH ENERGY PER PERSON AS BRAZIL AND ABOUT TWICE A MUCH AS EUROPE WHERE THE STANDARD OF LIVING IS SIMILAR.

The real problem is that we are energy "hogs."

Technology and developing alternatives to oil can help but the best thing to do is put a $2 to $3 tax on gasoline and then let the market adjust to higher prices.

MB
 
I think the two most likely alternatives to reducing imported petroleum will be the growth of the ethanol and plug-in hybrid technologies.

It may take 20-30 years, but replacing a large percentage of the current auto fleet with vehicles that are both flex-fuel and electric-only capable without a huge impact on driving experience (range, power, safety) is where we should be focusing.

Using the electric grid (can be powered by nuclear, coal, solar, wind, tidal) to re-charge vehicles during off-peak times night makes a lot of sense. We just need to get battery technology improved and bring down costs.
 
brewer12345 said:
Uh, because sugarcane doesn't grow all that well in most of the US and labor is a lot more expensive here than it is in Brazil.
Click to expand...

And they have about 9 cars in brazil, and they're all small enough to be put in a pocket.

SoonToRetire said:
I have a mulching mower and just let the stuff work its way back into the grass. Most neighbors, though, collect the waste into poly bags and set it out, where a gas hog trash truck hauls it to be buried at the county dump.
Click to expand...

I do the same thing and its my secret. Makes my neighbors nuts to see my nice rich thick green lawn. They're out there pouring fertilizer on theirs, dumping water on it and then cutting it ever 3 days.

Mulching and periodically letting it grow out so it'll set deeper roots. No fertilizer, much less water, much less lawn mowing.
 
kjpliny said:
Here's a nice one...gotta get that price down though:
http://www.teslamotors.com/
Click to expand...
His point is that the market is full of cheap golf carts electric cars, and a really sexy testosterone rocket will give the company enough revenue to make Tesla 2.0 a little more downscale with workable margins.

Sorta like DeLorean. No wait, I meant Lexus.
 
Nords said:
Judging from Hawaii's experience, if you're planning to plant sugar cane then you'd also better be able to hold your wage expenses down to compare favorably with Thailand & Malaysia...
Click to expand...

ooo...ouch! good point!

but couldn't it be like biodeisel? I don't know crap about this, but I know a few people that pick up cooking oil at their local restuarants & make their own biodeisel fairly cheaply (this is in MA).

If people in the south could grow their own sugar cane, could they harvest it & make their own fuel, I wonder?

Also, I'm wondering how much of the process could be automated, the way that we've automated corn harvesting. If people put their minds to it, perhaps they could come up with the technology to make it work.
 
As I listen and read about alternate fuel generation it is evident that search is in progress for enzymes that will break down biomass into chemical sugars suitable for fuel at temperatures that make the conversion economical. The type of biomass could include re-cycled paper, grasses, sugar cane. It won't happen over night, but I think we will see it in a couple years.

One research projected started with enzymes in an elephant's gut. Humm, wonder if they looked at termite guts? ;)
 
The current level of interest in alternative fuels and energy is fine, but all of these technical fixes are ignoring the roots of the problem, namely, overpopulation.

Yearly Americans are using twice as much fossil energy as the total solar energy captured by all plants through photosynthesis in the United States each year.

Even if that estimate is off by a factor of 10, it gives you an idea of how hard it will be to use biomass to replace fossil fuels, given this country's 300 million energy hogs.

Yes, technical fixes like solar power and better cars are needed in the short term, but someone should start thinking about policies that reverse the growth of demand, and that begins with population. Population policy isn't even on the radar of the politicians or the media.
 
TromboneAl said:
The current level of interest in alternative fuels and energy is fine, but all of these technical fixes are ignoring the roots of the problem, namely, overpopulation.

Yearly Americans are using twice as much fossil energy as the total solar energy captured by all plants through photosynthesis in the United States each year.

Even if that estimate is off by a factor of 10, it gives you an idea of how hard it will be to use biomass to replace fossil fuels, given this country's 300 million energy hogs.

Yes, technical fixes like solar power and better cars are needed in the short term, but someone should start thinking about policies that reverse the growth of demand, and that begins with population. Population policy isn't even on the radar of the politicians or the media.
Click to expand...


Vasectomies for all!!
 
TromboneAl said:
Population policy isn't even on the radar of the politicians or the media.
Click to expand...

Probably because it would be so massively unpopular (not to mention unChristain, way to alienate a huge number of americans!), that the person who suggested it would have to look out for hit men for the rest of his/her life.

Don't get me wrong though, I support population control ideas. Procreation should not be an unalienable right, especially past the first kid. But I know I'm hugely unpopular on that end (& probably just opened myself up to get hugely flamed).
 
Just reducing our population won't help much. It is our energy consumption per person that is the problem. We have a lifestyle that ignores energy consumption at every level.

IMHO we must change for security reasons, as a start.
 
Just reducing our population won't help much. It is our energy consumption per person that is the problem.
Click to expand...

Sure, they're both important, but a 10% change in population will help as much as a 10% change in consumption.

Current population 300 million. Projected population for 2050: 419 million. Just keeping the population steady at 300 million would "cut" energy consumption by 29%.
 
There are a lot of people who have historically been low users of energy who want the services energy provides... electricity and cars for a start. Even a small increase in their consumption will have huge impact on the world's energy demand. We really need to start addressing our own, yesterday.

The pressure of an aging population on our fiscal condition leads me to conclude that our population will increase from immigration. If we start managing our transportation and land use with the assumption that energy will be expensive from this time forward generations to come with appreciate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom