I read a study where the projected landmass required to sustain bioethanol crops would be double that of the current world agricultural acerage. Of course we don't need 100% of our fuel to be ethanol. I read another study that suggested the landmass of useless grassland between highway medians could be used to produce a significant quantity of fuel source. A few years ago a researcher at Stanford University invented a type of yeast that processes cellulose as well as sugars.
Ethanol from corn requires a very energy intensive process to convert the cellulose to fermentable sugars, so intensive in fact that ethanol from corn is deemed by many scientists to be uneconomical. Most of the corn cellulose then becomes fuel to fire the boilers that produce the steam that cracks the rest of the cellulose. It is awfully expensive to harvest corn just so it can be burned. This new yeast does the job of eating the cellulose and producing alcohol. This has the effect of quadrupling the amount of fermentable material with no additional cost. Since we are now hovering at the breakeven point, increasing the amount of ethanol so much makes it a clear winner.
Other innovations like clean coal technology that use decarbonization and sequesterization to seal away all the CO2 could supplant vast amounts of oil. Wind and solar power should undergo significant improvements over the next 20 years as well. Combining all of these resources together all we need to do is replace the 60% of our oil that comes from foreign sources, the other 40% we can supply ourselves.
Fusion technology has always been 20 years away. 20 years ago they said we would have it in 20 years, every year since then it was always 20 years away. Today it is still 20 years away. See the trend? Some scientists are beginning to realize maybe fusion power is beyond our grasp, at least during the 21st century. I would not count on fusion power within any of our lifetimes. There is one ray of hope, a hybrid fission-fusion reactor that promises to increase nuclear reactor outputs tremendously. It's not sustained fusion, but it's better than fission. We may see this within 20 years.
I read some rather fun stuff about the "fuel of the future", Hydrogen.
There is more hydrogen in a litre of petrol than in a litre of hydrogen, whether it is gaseous or liquid, or even slush!
There is no known way of making hydrogen that is even vaguely efficient, meaning that to make it uses up a lot more energy than you get back from burning it. Partly, this is because you are splitting the hydrogen and oxygen apart from water, which is, after all, the ash left behind from burning hydrogen and oxygen! So you get losses all the way though the system!
Hydrogen tanks explode in a really impressive way... Could provide me with some entertainment, I like explosions.
Suffice to say, we won't be using hydrogen as a replacement any time soon, unless we get to the bottom of photosynthesis, and grow ourselves plants that give off hydrogen gas. Currently, Hydrogen looks more like the "fool of the future"...
On the other hand...
Biomass is big bowl of bullshit. People think it's environmentally friendly because it has "bio" in front of it.
The real facts:
Biomass is natural waste, eg wood chips, dead vegetation, etc. This usually has been decomposing a bit already, during which it already released NH3, H2S and CO2 into the atmosphere. When burnt, this will results in less carbondioxide emission per kg of biomass...BUT the actual amount of CO2 produced per kWh of electricity is actually more!
Damn, biologists, they're so full of bull. Recently I heard a biologist claim that we should log the rainforest because it produces as much carbondioxide as it absorbed. Well, well, didn't someone just disprove the law of mass conservation, because wood can apparently be made out of nothing but photons.
Another nitwit added to that that we should destroy coral reefs, because they're CaCO3, which would then release 3 moles of oxygen gas!
As far as "global warming" is concerned, as long as people like Al Gore, and Michael Moore are even remotely alive, I will remain agnostic to the situation.
AND, as many have said before only to go ignored.
The planet is fine, the people are fucked. The planet was here before we were, and will be here long after we're gone.
I support your views totally, we are the disease of this planet. And finding alternative energy sources is also a way to free ourselves from the imperialistic OPEC. I give my soul to see Chavez and the Arabs eating their oil when the world send them to hell.
