Tequila plant could fuel vehicles and help reduce emissions - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
User Tag List

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 8 (permalink) Old 07-29-2011, 04:11 PM Thread Starter
Drunk with power...er beer.
Donutz's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 5,256
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Blog Entries: 258
Tequila plant could fuel vehicles and help reduce emissions

Tequila plant could fuel vehicles and help reduce emissions

Two problems with this article:

1) They're not planning on producing more tequila -- they're trying to hijack tequila production!
2) Drinking tequila increases emissions. Or is that beer?

Flabbergasted: Having an excess of flabbergas.
Donutz is offline  
post #2 of 8 (permalink) Old 07-30-2011, 09:12 PM
Senior Member
HoboMaster's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I really dislike this whole attempt to convert food product crops into vehicle fuel. It sounds like a really great idea on the outside, but on anything other then a very small scale it's not an efficient use of material at all. It's kind of like the meat industry; far more energy units are put into producing the meat then the meat will ever yield itself. You're much better off just using the crop to feed/inebriate people and instead invest in renewable energy which's only purpose is just that.

What would be revolutionary is if they spent money on inventing a super-high efficiency battery instead which would eliminate needing a combustion fuel source, and then you could just have everyone running off electricity. The electricity would be generated completely from domestic renewable processes, eliminating emissions and oil importation almost completely.

Or if they can't figure out the battery, there is always hydrogen, (which would also be created from domestic renewable processes as well)

PowderHound and TreeNinja

Last edited by HoboMaster; 07-30-2011 at 09:16 PM.
HoboMaster is offline  
post #3 of 8 (permalink) Old 07-31-2011, 04:59 PM
With extra cheese.
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
All hydrocarbon based forms of fuels (ethanol being an oxygenated hydrocarbon) produce carbon dioxide and water constiuents when reacted with oxygen in stochiometric or excess quantities. At higher temperatures, reaction rates of oxygenated nitrogen products become significant, producing NOx products. This is no different than getting ethanol from corn and using that as a fuel.
CheeseForSteeze is offline  
post #4 of 8 (permalink) Old 08-02-2011, 03:30 AM
Senior Member
gibbous's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'd like to think that if we put our minds and some research money into it we could at least find a way of extracting natural gas from shale that does not involve pumping millions of gallons of hazardous chemicals into the ground and polluting the shit out of the water table.

Unfortunately that would probably cost Haliburton more money, which quickly rules out the possibility of it ever happening.
gibbous is offline  
post #5 of 8 (permalink) Old 08-02-2011, 12:32 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Greenock
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I feel a bit mixed about this, for some reasons already stated. But if it can reduce the deforestation of the Amazon and other forests as well as the pressure on poor farmers, then I guess it ain't too bad. But I see this as more a short-to-medium-term thing. There are much better alternatives which should be invested in.
gezsweet is offline  
post #6 of 8 (permalink) Old 08-02-2011, 01:34 PM
With extra cheese.
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
We don`t even need to be that exotic in the near term if we could get over the irrational fear of new nuclear energy technologies. Now before everyone goes apeshit here, I am not talking about our current, antiquated type 1 and 2 reactors that need to be phased out. I am talking about the type 3 and 4 reactors that are light years ahead of the kind of plant we saw melt down in Japan. Specifically, the Molten Salt Reactors (MSR`s) that use more plentiful and less radioactive Thorium fuels.

Granted, we ultimately need to harness the full energy potential of our star with orbiting solar power plants that beam the energy to ground based stations to put it into the grid. For now however, we need a "stop gap" technology to get us through to that day without pumping more CO2 and other pollutants into our atmosphere and nuclear power is the best way to go.

Read up on these new MSR reactors:

Concepts & Prototypes: Two Next-Gen Nukes | Popular Science
I work at a Gen III reactor, GE BWR design. Same design as the ones @ Daiichi Fukushima. Anyway, Gen III+ licensed reactors have combined construction and operating permits and are currently being built in the South. Check the NRC's website for information.

Gen III+ reactors feature lots of passive safety systems which are more reliable the current crop of Gen III reactor designs. GE-Hitachi ESBWR and Westinghouse AP1000 are the ones currently evaluated for license.

Gen IV liquid sodium moderated or pebble bed designs are a far and distant hope for the United States. It's a conundrum that because current plant designs are "unsafe" (and they are, to a degree) newer designs which are safer will not be licensed and brought online. And there is also a huge corporatist favortism for GE and Westinghouse in terms of the licensing process which makes pushing new reactor designs into even pilot programs damned near impossible.

The safeest reactors are centuries away in development. They would use fusion driven cores with a magnetic Tokamak style containment. As opposed to having 3 generations of fuel for a 2 year cycle in the core all at once, these reactors would be inherently safe, as their fuel loads inside the reactor would be infintesimally small at any instant and instabilities would terminate reactivity rather than potentially exacerbate it. They would also not be limited by decay heat since the reaction wouldn't involve fissioning heavy atoms in a beta decay process.

And if they would ever license a plant out West near the long season mountains, yes I would move there to work. The best option for snowboarders right now is Vermont Yankee. And it's not worth moving there if snowboarding is the goal.
CheeseForSteeze is offline  

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome