MovieChat Forums > Fields of Fuel (2009) Discussion > What kind of alternatives is he proposin...

What kind of alternatives is he proposing?

posted 15 years ago by JohnFK
6 replies | jump to latest

First of all, I'm eager to see this film, and I'm a big fan of people who want to change the way we live, so don't take this as critique, I'm just asking.

What alternatives to fossile fuel does this film give?

I'm asking because, basically, fossile fuel has been (partly) a dream for so many years, and to my knowledge, we haven't really got anything even close to being as cheap and effective as it. Many people have compared it to going around picking up diamonds readily laying on top of the soil, because of the sheer wealth you get out of oil. It's mounds of energy just lying around, basically. Make no mistake about it, it has been driving the world.

There has been a lot of documentaries on this subject over the years, and I think the most important one's are the ones really examining the impact of the disappearance of oil on the economy, because oil is going away, no matter what we do, we will run out in a few decades, and although it will be potentially good for the planet, it will be devestating for a world made up on non-functioning economical models (in short, economy is the least logical construct humans have ever devised) and the belief of eternal growth.

There are physical limits, and oil is one of them. Physical limits on the IT industry is another (Moore's law together with oil is basically what has been driving the economy the last decades -- it will be broken pretty soon, and flatten somewhat). Without the IT industry as a cushion, and standing suddenly without energy, the world will break down.

Or we could sit down, take a good look on the ridiculousness of the economy as a whole, and understand that the world simply doesn't work the way that economic models supposes. Find out how much energy we really do need, abolish economy as we know it, and goddamn fast find a way to create vast amounts of energy cheaply.

Biofuel is not even close to being enough, and it's proven to be problematic as it is competing directly with food. So my question is: does this film give any viable suggestions as to the sheer massiveness it is to invent a new oil, or is it basically biofuel, happy happy joy joy?

Not to be cruel, but I'm only asking because I know it simply does not work that way. We are in deep deep *beep* here, and it can't be fixed if we all hold hands and praise biodiesel. I'm hoping this movie is something more. Is it?

[–] thinair-2 15 years ago

I just saw the movie, and it is indeed something more. Biodiesel, or biofuels in general are not a catch all solution. There must be a combination of wind, solar, thermal, tide, and biomass. Currently we could power the entire US if we covered something like 7% of all urban rooftops with solar panels, or the equivalent of about 1/4 of nevada, which is actually mostly not being used for much at all.

While it would be bad to use food crops for fuel, or to cut down rainforest for fuel, there's no reason not to use used cooking oil for conversion to biodiesel. But by the same token, maybe we need to consider how much corn we grow to produce high fructose corn syrup and for cattle feed, which cattle aren't supposed to eat in the first place.

There also have been advancements in algae biodiesel, which can be grown in ponds even in the desert where food can't be grown anyway. It can reproduce every few hours, as well as an additional way to treat waste for carbon sequestration.

The other thing we really need to do is simply change our lifestyle from one of mass consumption, to one of mass conservation. Simple things like taking shorter showers, drying your clothes on the line, taking the bus, riding a bike, walking, using energy efficient light bulbs and appliances, turning off our computers when not in use, and simply changing some of our recreational habits, can really make a big impact.

[–] bruce-129 14 years ago

the way i see it we have expanded our population way over the carrying capacity
of the earth, so any non-mining or agricultural solution is not workable.

i think we have to consider nuclear. i'm in the middle of the film now, and i doubt
that he is going to touch on nuclear except as something bad, but i think nuclear
if it can be done without the profit can be workable. maybe administered by NASA
or something, and part of the cost over every kwh going towards an accident fund.

we need a large scale solution that will be around forever, and the only thing I have
ever heard of that can do that is the nuclear breeder reactors.

[–] FourFiveEight 12 years ago

Nuclear is a finite resource I know it sounds like a futuristic solution but really it's not much better than coal apart from you have to change the fuel source less and you don't run into environmental impact until the plant goes wrong and takes the surrounding region down with it.

The truth is until someone figures out cold fusion we're going to have to look into survive by other means, Solar, tide, wind (Which could use some improvements in tech) stuff like that.
And agriculture stuff isn't a bad idea either because going forward we'll be able to do stuff like vertical farms and bring more plant life back into the cities which will keep them cooler during summer and have other benefits.

there is also another documentary which indicates that the days of the suburb will be over soon so the new urban idea sounds ideal and encourages people to walk more and help obesity.
All the solutions are available they just need people to stop bitching and try things.

[–] bruce-129 12 years ago

Have you heard of the breeder reactor? It can "breed" it's own fuel by transmuting elements and isotopes. The way we do fission now, it is like burning coal, we turn radioactive stuff into non-radioactive stuff, but there are many other designs of reactors that do not do this. I actually do not understand how the breeder reactor does not violate conservation of energy except we are talking fuel and not mass, so presumably energy and mass are conserved while somehow creating more fuel that the reactor starts out with. The problem is that it runs on plutonium and that scared people because of toxity and bomb-making ability plus it runs very very hot using liquid sodium as a coolant which is scary, plus a working breeder reactor was harder and more expensive to build when it was protptyped back in the 70's. If it can be done, it ought to be able to be done today, or at least an experimental reactor could be build.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] m_hanson76 10 years ago

The alternative is rampant poverty.