Today's New York Times has a front-page story about how biofuels are driving up food prices around the world and how they therefore may not be a such a great idea after all. That could be true if the only feedstocks available for producing biofuels were food crops, as the article implies, but that's far from the truth.
Baxjr, that comment just proves to the rest of us how little you have looked into some of these subjects. Why don't you take some time to get informed and then you wouldn't be afraid of hydrogen or ethanol. Hydrogen's the most abundant element in the galaxy, and breaking down water into oxygen and hydrogen yields more volume of gas (both H and O2) than the water that went into the process. When hydrogen is combusted in the presence of oxygen, do you know what the byproduct is? Pure H2O. Water. That's all. No carbon dioxide, no carbon monoxide, no sulfrous compounds, no ash. Other than it's high flammability, it makes a perfect portable fuel. And we've all had lots of experience shipping and handling pressurized flammable gases/liquids, such as propane, acetylene. (Have a propane gas grill? I do.) I guarantee that if companies spent as much $$$$MONEY$$$$ on R&D for efficient ways to crack water into hydrogen (and building infrastructure) as oil companies do on more efficient ways to pull petroleum out of the ground, we'd all be driving fuel cell cars in less than 5 years. While I agree that ethanol from foodstocks is a stupid idea (someone needs their "scientist card" revoked), the fact that we have all the infrastructure in place and it's relatively easy to modify engines to use ethanol is extremely compelling. However, there are so many other WASTE products that we should be looking at using for ethanol instead of raw product. The average American household wastes 14% of the food they purchase (not to mention restaurants), and if that goes into a landfill many of the nutrients are locked out of the ecosystem. And the rotting produces methane and CO2. Instead, use this as the feed stock for an ethanol. Also, lots more research needs to be done into cellulosic ethanol, which can be created from any construction/yard waste materials. I don't know about where you're from, but around here when they clear a new wooded lot for construction, they cut down all the large trees, then use a bulldozer to push down all the saplings and brush into a pile, then burn it. With cellulosic ethanol, you can explore using many fast growing non/depleting plants for the process, such as bamboo, hemp, kudzu (would be nice to find a use for that stuff). As far as the electric issue, solar and wind are great ideas, hydroelectric and geothermal need to be more fully utilized. and nuclear energy could be made safer than it is now (search pebble-bed reactors and Gen. IV and V+ technologies) but it is still more viable long-term than electricity from coal power, which is globally still the prevalent technology for power generation. Just don't knock new technologies until you have looked into them further. They can all benefit us and help curb pollution.
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
Share links with friends, comment on stories and more
In our December issue, Popular Science names the 100 best innovations of the year: bombproof wallpaper, self-parking cars, the fastest helicopter, and 97 more. Plus inventor profiles and videos.
Check out the best of what's new here.