Fuel vs. Food |
Post Reply |
Author | ||
allardjd
Moderator in Command Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Florida - USA Points: 4506 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 25 Apr 2008 at 4:07pm |
|
wisemanp
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Gloucestershire Points: 1087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I totally agree.
Biofuels burn in the same way as fossil fuels so produce the same carbon dioxide emmissions.
By planting biofuel crops you are either taking away food producing land, or destroying forest, meaning less CO2 taken out of the air by trees...
Just some of the disadvantages of biofuel...
|
||
Regards, Phil
You'll Never Walk Alone |
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The claim is that the crops absorb Co2 from the atmosphere during their life cycle so there is no net increase in Co2 when it's utilized as fuel. This doesn't take into account the Co2 emitted by agricultural vehicles preparing the land though and depends on the land being free of vegetation before planting. I'm not a fan of biofuels either:
In practice, biofuels are neither carbon neutral or carbon negative. This is because energy is required to grow crops and process them into fuel. Examples of energy use during the production of biofuels include: fertilizer manufacture, fuel used to power machinery, and fuel used to transport crops and fuels to and from biofuel processing plants. The amount of fuel used during biofuel production has a large impact on the overall greenhouse gas emissions savings achieved by biofuels. |
||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The whole thing is a bloody joke, and really cheeses me off.
Environmentalists won't be happy until we're back in the dark ages, fighting each other to survive. Even then, I bet they can find some reason for climate change. We can't do a darn thing about it. Creating food shortages is far more of a problem than any climate change ever could be. If they're not careful, they're going to turn this whole mess into a self-fulfilling prophecy. I agree that the only thing bio-fuels do is cut our reliance on middle eastern oil. I don't quite understand what the fuss is about; is it in the "what if" scenario, or is there some problem with supplies we know nothing about? BTW: proud to have a second monitor consuming an additional 75W of power. I don't care how "green" it is; it's still a consumer (something else environmentalists don't fully understand). Best regards, Vulcan. |
||
allardjd
Moderator in Command Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Florida - USA Points: 4506 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I find the whole arguement that bio-fuels are "carbon-neutral" or better to be the result of fuzzy logic - or worse, of deliberate deception.
The ground that the fuel crop grew on had something growing on it, whether cultivated or wild, before it was put to use for growing a fuel crop. Converting that ground to the production of fuel did not materially change the oxygen-producing, carbon-consuming effect of the plant life growing there... ...but they'd like us to think it did.
Some utilities in the US now offer "green" electricity, supposedly produced from renewable resources. Some people willingly pay the premium price that is charged.
Of course all the generating units are connected to the same grid, as are all the customers, so the whole concept that you're getting something that was generated from "renewable" fuel is laughable.
P.T. Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.
|
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
They do use forestry waste and naturally occurring wild switch grass, elephant grass etc. So in some cases it's the indigenous crop itself that's converted into bio fuels. In most cases not though, the second generation biofuels are better, but the rest of the process to convert to fuel is still an issue.
|
||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Two major things that annoy me are: * They go on about something that has actually had little research done on it * (in the case of bio-fuel) they're finding that it may actually result in MORE CO2 being produced than if we used regular fossile fuel.
That happened over here for a short time, but since it was exposed as a con on national TV, they've dropped the part about needing to pay a premium. It's a blatent attempt at profiteering, nothing else. Best regards, Vulcan. |
||
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |