• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Biofuels worse than gasoline for environment

SearchingforPeace

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
5,711
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Biofuels 'worse than petrol' for the environment, new study finds

Green” biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel are in fact worse for the environment that petrol, a landmark new study has found.

....

But new research in the US has found that the crops used for biofuel absorb only 37 per cent of the C02 that is later released into the atmosphere when the plants are burnt, meaning the process actually increases the amount of greenhouse gas in the air.

...

However, the scientists from Michigan ignored the prevailing models and analysed real data on crop production, biofuel production, fossil fuel production and vehicle emissions.

“The underpinnings of policies used to promote biofuels for reasons of climate have now been proven to be scientifically incorrect,” said Professor DeCicco.

“Policymakers should reconsider their support for biofuels.

“This issue has been debated for many years; what’s new here is that hard data, straight from America’s croplands, now confirm the worst fears about the harm that biofuels do to the planet.”

I liked the idea of biofuels but it turned out to be just another crony boondoggle. Corn based fuel was always bad because corn based ethanol takes more energy to produce than is it can produce.

And add in the environmental damage from corn expansion (many wetlands and green spaces were plowed over during the ethanol boom) plus higher food prices, and it really fails any reasonableness test.

Corn ethanol should not subsidized, but banned.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
I have the guts to openly say that this is wrong logic.


With fossil fuels you dig out something that was under the ground for hundreds of millions of years and therefore you release new carbon into the system. While with biofuels you are using carbon that is already in the air/soil and therefore you prevent futher build up of Carbon dioxide in the system. Only nuclear reactions in stars have the ability to create new carbon atoms.



The true problem is that biofules require plenty of space and resources to produce ... something we may not have on a global level if we all want to eat.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Well that's good news FINITE oil, gas, coal and DANGEROUS nuclear power to the rescue then?

Wait, wait, I get it, another one of these threads. OK.
 
Top