Bio-Fuels not so green

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Skull Pilot, Feb 9, 2008.

  1. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,824
    Thanks Received:
    4,502
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,111
    http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/02/more-bad-news-f.html

    The thrust of the study states that clearing land for the planting and harvesting of biofuel sources such as corn, soy, sugar cane etc actually causes more CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere; moreso than automobiles alone. The reason being that the land cleared is a more effective carbon sink and actually ties up more CO2 than the total reduction of CO2 seen by burning biofuels rather than petroleum.
     
  2. Taomon
    Offline

    Taomon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,563
    Thanks Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +47
    We should be moving away from fossil fuels for two reasons...one to stop the acceleration of our atmosphere's deterioration and two to stop dependance on Muslim entities.

    I don't think there is a one stop, be all end all solution. I think we have to go with multiple solutions.

    One fore-runner is solar power. The next would be wind followed by hydro-power. MIT has been working with turning algea into fuel and that would probably solve two problems...fuel needs and algae cleanup.
     
  3. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,824
    Thanks Received:
    4,502
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,111
    i don't disagree with you but if this study is proven out, burning biofuels on the scale needed to reduce petroleum emissions would actually increase our atmospheric "deterioration" And in the U.S. at least only about 10 -15% of oil used comes from Muslim countries most of our oil comes from Canada
     
  4. Taomon
    Offline

    Taomon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,563
    Thanks Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +47
    If that study is correct, then it would be a huge mistake to go with sugar and corn to replace petroluem & fossil fuels. But it doesn't mention algae, solar, wind & water.

    Also, if we create feasible alternatives other countries will follow suit, meaning we will not need to meddle in the Middle East to control oil sales to China and Russia, which is what we are doing.
     
  5. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    I think you're both on different pages. Unless you think, solar and wind can be used as car fuel Tao, you seem to be talking about production of electricity, he seems to be talking about car fuel.

    Ethanol is the biggest farce out there (although the fertilization of corn does create a lot of algae in the gulf). I would lean more toward Hydrogen or Nuclear. Nuclear would solve both issues.
     
  6. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
    Unless, of course, your house is on three-mile island....

    And let me know when they figure out how to dispose of the waste.
     
  7. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Technology does and has improved over time where nuclear energy is concerned and is thus it is considerably safer. The waste to energy ratio should not be ignored.
     
  8. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
    But technology hasn't improved in this area. And even if the waste to energy ratio were better, we're still talking about nuclear waste being moved around the country in trucks -- huge security risk.
     
  9. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Where safety is concerned there most certainly have been improvements. Safety is the reason we aren't using more nuclear technology.

    http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm
     
  10. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
    Exactly my point.
     

Share This Page