Biofuels worse for climate change than fossil fuels »

RSS Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 9 (view all)

- Display No Filter Fair Comments - 25% and above Good Comments - 50% and above Excellent Comments - 75% and above

• 100%

  STONERS7 months ago

  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

  "Comparing like for like, fossil fuels were considered to produce more carbon dioxide than biofuels, which has led to the assumption that fossil fuels cause more greenhouse warming than biofuels. However, when 'indirect' emissions and timing of emissions are taken into consideration, biofuels begin to lose their green credentials."
  
  "Michael O'Hare of the University of California, in Berkeley, US, and his colleagues developed a model to assess the greenhouse-gas impact from both fossil fuels and biofuels over their entire lifecycle. In each case they studied how carbon dioxide emissions change over time, and how long-lived the carbon dioxide is."

  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)

  Reply

  0 Replies

  loading ...
• 100%

  reasonable17 months ago

  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

  We did that knee-jerk reaction thing and started mandating ethanol in our gasoline! Our mileage figures have suffered, corn based food products went up in price, and now we find out that it's worse for the environment! I hope we have learned a lesson about "rushing" solutions to our problems!

  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)

  Reply

  2 Replies

  loading ...
  • 100%

    memestryker7 months ago

    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

    This is always the problem when politics rather than science or reasoned long-term analysis is used to "solve" problems. But political windows of opportunity open and if they aren't exploited, they may not reappear, so there is a tendency to catch waves when they come. A study a few years back showed political appointees keep their jobs an average of 18 months, which isn't even time to become experts. I doubt we'll stop rushing solutions any time soon.

    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)

    Reply

    1 Reply

    loading ...
    • 100%

      wtagg7 months ago

      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

      Politics mandated corn as a fuel source. That alone is reason to doubt governmental oversight into such things. Just about any other bio source provides more energy than corn, a hard to grow, machinery and labor intensive, water intensive, one crop annual. Why would any rational person would consider switchgrass, a weed that is almost impossible not to grow, provides about 5 times the energy, can be harvested many times a year, and is drought resistant, is beyond me.

      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)

      Reply

      0 Replies

      loading ...
• Neutral

  NoWayMan7 months ago

  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

  we still need to put research funds in this direction because its a promising one that will have a huge impact on the future. but letting things like corn be the preferred cash crop for this, when corn is NOT the answer, is just more politics (corn lobby) and business as usual.
  
  and at the end of the day, if the harm to the environment from biofuels is equal to that of fossil fuels, then IMO biofuels still win since they don't have all the geo-political madness atached to them in the way fossil fuels do, and the money we spend on making our cars go would stay here instead of going to the middle east, where it ultimately can and is being used to fund who knows what (wahabbi schools? anyone?).
  
  biofuels may not yet be the best answer today, but one day, it will be.

  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)

  Reply

  3 Replies

  loading ...
  • 100%

    Gransater7 months ago

    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

    NWM
    
    I believe you may be partially correct. Biofuels do not yet have the same stigma that fossil fuels have.
    
    There are c couple of problems with biofuels that will keep it from ever being anything but a temporary aid.
    
    There isn't any way we can grow enough energy to satisfy our energy needs.
    Biofuel still relies on combustion to provide power, and as such does create harmfull byproducts.
    Biofuels aren't as efficient as fossil fuels, so you'd have to increase the demand, in sheer quantity to keep up with demand. See point 1 above.
    Biofuels, by their inherent properties have a tendency to wear out engines a lot faster than does fossil fuels. Check the general opinion of vehicle owners in Brasil, where ethanol has been a matter of fact for a couple of decades by now.
    
    The energy of the future will most likely end up being some form of controled fussion, something that has evaded researches for years, but progress is being made. In the meanwhile electric vehicles will steal the spotlight. There are many detractors, but in the end the new technology coming online will prevail. Floodgates will open when solar cell integrated paint becomes available, and initial research appears positive.

    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)

    Reply

    2 Replies

    loading ...
    • 100%

      NoWayMan7 months ago

      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

      everything you said is true. today.
      
      that's why we have to put the money there. for R etc. for tomorrow.
      
      we simply can't use the oil up until its gone. its killing us in many ways, environmentally, politically, etc. so we need a solution. biofuels seems to be a viable direction if we can find the right crop (switch grass?) and are able to accomodate it mechanically.
      
      controlled fussion sounds great. on a bigger scale that could work for the masses. but to get that to the micro level of a personal car is very very far away.
      
      and I do like things like electric cars, but the problem there is that we get much of our electricity from coal. so using an electirc car might help at the consumer end to reduce pollution, etc, but it might not help in a larger sense since coal plants will be providing the electricity for them.
      
      so, the overall solution will probably a mix of everything we've covered, and then one fine day, solar will be the answer to all of the questions. but by the time that day comes, we'll all be dead most likely.

      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)

      Reply

      1 Reply

      loading ...

• ekklesiawarriorComment removed: Hard Banned

View All 9 Comments

More News