Is the growing use of biofuels a good idea? One could say it is, because it diminishes the use of traditional fuels, coming from oil, therefore giving us more time before we ran out of oil. Besides that, biofuels are CO2-neutral and therefore do not contribute to the climate-change.
On the other hand, biofuels need to be grown, and are therefore putting a strain on the land that can be used for agriculture. We al already seeing a rising of the price of food, partially because of this. There are the so called second-generation biofuels, that only use biomatter that is not suitable for food, but it is questionable if that can provide enough fuel to maintain the usage of today.
I think it would be more wise to bring back the use of oil by restraining first of all the use of private transport en invest in public transport, saving the oil for the use in agriculture, industry and distribution. Secondly, we must already develop and make alternative engines, powered by for instance hydrogen, so that, when we ran out of oil, an alternative is available.
Biofuels would give us a little more time but in the end we must still make the switch to a non-oil-based economy. We might as well start with that right away.
Haje 00:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if its possible to really bring down the use of privat transport. How would you think to do that? But I think there is a lot to gain by making the cars use other fuels then oil, and having governments arrange a quick spreading of the use of it, by putting their taxes on right places.
In itself, using hydrogen seems a better plan then biofuels, 'cause there's so much of it, ('constituting roughly 75% of the universe's elemental mass':wikipedia). And the use of it causes no exhaust at all. In Iceland they are allready experimenting with it. Imagine: cars fueled by water! Initiated by Bragi Anarson ('Professor Hydrogen') and supported by the multinationals Shell,(!) DaimlerCrysler and Norsk Hydro, they are well on their way of becoming the first country with no airpolution. Iceland is a good country for it, 'cause they have a lot of natural recourses to provide electricity. To be able to use hydrogen, a lot of electricity is needed.
So I guess there is a need for broader change of energy-providing, namely using wind, sun and water for the electricity, which can be used then for hydrogen for cars etc.
The other one, biofuels, might be needed too for now- though its true, it takes up a lot of land. But on the other hand: if humans woulnd't eat so much meat, there would be plenty of land left to grow biofuels! But that's another discussion maybe...
Saz, 11.00, 23 april 2008
It's true that it will be hard to bring down the use of private transport, especially in the developed countries, where most people are accustomed to having a car of their own and will not be keen of giving that up. So politically there is a problem: how do you convince people that it is necessary to switch to public transport? There are a few possibilities:
- Using the media to explain the problem and ask for people to consider giving up their car's if they do not really need them.
- Making public transport considerably cheaper, by subsidizing every ticket that is bought.
- At the same time make gas more expensive by taxing it more heavily (if that is necessary, because it might already become more expensive, because of the price of oil getting up; this might be a blessing in disguise).
Of course we cannot get rid of all the cars; even if everybody who can would use public transport, we still need cars on places where there is no public transport, we need busses for the public transport on places where there are no trains, subways or trams, we need trucks for the transport of goods. So motorized vehicles will still be necessary. I agree that hydrogen is at this moment the most promising possibility to become the alternative for oil-based engines.
But swiching to a hydrogen-based transportsystem will take a lot of resources and money to invest in. New energyplants will have to be build for the production of hydrogen, since the plants that are already there are needed to supplie energy to the homes and the factories. The hydrogen will have to be distributed, by vehicles or maybe through pipelines. At gasstations there will be new equipment needed to get the hydrogen into the cars. And of course cars have to be build and used.
All this investment will only have a long-term benefit, so it won't be easy to convince corporations to invest in it. Probably, at least a part of the money that is needed, will have to come from governments and thus from the tax-payers.
But once a beginning of the new infrastructure for hydrogen is there, government can also stimulate the use of the new hydrogencars, for instance by replacing the busses, used for public transport, by hydrogen-based cars, or making the use of hydrogen cars by transport-companies and individuals attractive, by using tax-measures. In that way a market for the hydrogen is created, and investing in it will become more profitable.
Haje 15:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)