Biofuels turn out to be a climate mistake -- here's why
Wow, 20 years of stupid, corrupt policies, fails to do a damn thing, except icrease the costs of food fuel, ruin billions of small engines, and then: ooopps...we were stupid. I think I heard a lot of people making these statements here (against the whole bio fuel boondoggle, I mean).
Yes biofuels increase CO2 emissions compared with fossil fuels.
The planet is at about 400 parts per million at the moment, humans exhale 40,000 ppm, commercial greenhouses use 1500ppm,
at 150ppm all plant life dies and all animal will follow.
Should these madcap carbon-capture schemes, as favorably referred to by some on this site, become successful all life on planet earth is threatened.
CO2 is beneficial not harmful, it has no effect on atmospheric temperature. Of CO2 in the atmosphere about three percent is from human activities. Its residence time in the atmosphere is 10 years (all studies have a range from 5 to 18 years except the UN IPCC which without quoting observations or sources gives 100 years).
The eco-nuts are perfect dupes for the likes of ADM, since they see no enemies on the left.
It is easy to get sucked into discussing the technical details.
You say- 'It is almost as if someone WANTED '
I would delete the word 'almost'.
The green/environmentalists are tools of those who want more powerful central governments. The UN especially is a good source of pronouncements of these real objectives.
Corn ethanol is a complete loser as a biofuel. Sugar Cane Ethanol is far better, but not suitable for most of the US. Vegetable oil in a diesel cycle works fine, and regardless of transportation costs/CO2, is overwhelmingly the best solar power available in kW/acre. Straight vegetable oil (SVO) works fine. Waste vegetable oil i(WVO) s another, more limited supply.
Vegetable oil in a diesel or gas turbine, is a responsible option, not the folly of greenie fools.
No, I do not support AWG, but I do consider eliminating dependence on oil the overwhelmingly most effective defense against terrorism. As such, and only as such, I can see a reason for government involvement as military function. However, the rest of this nonsense, solar farm, wind subsidies, ethanol, and Prius's are self-righteous fascist bullying.
Why can't we sue the EPA/DOT for this?
GET OUT OF THE WAY! Let the free market work!
For the high maintenance folk who like to pay a fortune to live on a Florida beach or have hotel businesses on the beach, well they likely are trying to inspire the rest of us to do what they think will help them NOT lose their ass from inundations they think is explainably related to CO2 proportions in the atmosphere only.
Honolulu and other big cities, have terrible traffic congestion. Terrible until there was big rise in fuel costs then the gridlock eased. Increasing unemployment too eased the gridlock. Not rocket science methinks.
Housing foreclosures high iaround 2008 when after an oil price gouge people would drive rather than pay mortgages down. Apparently and astonishingly I heard from those across the street who lost their house that they could afford to pay for fuel for a car they could LIVE in but not the house. Told to me while chain smoking and later died of lung cancer. Go figure.
Methinks political crony capitalism acts not on knowledge at all but self-serving goals.
In the case of bio-fuels then what are the farmers to do with a removal of government subsidies of alcohol? Price of corn without it I wonder if it pay to farm corn at all? Would eliminate even "small" farmers who lease property as well as own who farm less than 5,000 acres perhaps. Annual data for the price of corn on January 1, is available and it seems to be the deal of the decade even compared to oil on the consumer side, but the production side? Efficiencies are STILL being honed what with adaptive to land quality application of fertilizers and chemicals coming from drones and such mapped to GPS coordinates and equipment automization.
It´s obvious that the world doesn´t need this kind of solution, but rather to investigate on more effective and renewable energies, as well as to learn to negotiate with the status quo that most likely invests in preventing other ways and/or solutions because, let´s face; the game is rigged. Don´t want to come off as too pesimistic here, for solutions have been found and efficient ways have already been proven, being held down and restrained by all the "red tape".
I vaguely remember an episode of The West Wing where the White House staff were having to evaluate which alternative energy was best. The ideas was "wow, this is so hard, and gov't officials who are not scientists have to listen to scientists and pick where our energy comes from." The show is right that that would be nearly impossible, but the solution is easy. If you somehow make people pay for the costs on the environment of the CO2 they emit, the market will find the right solution.
That answer has already been tallied and it is a net negative. Producing ethanol costs more in energy than it produces. As a market side effect, it also drives up the place of corn and corn products and misappropriates land for corn production that normally would have been used for other crops, thus driving down their prices as well. The reach of these policies goes far beyond just trying to destroy gasoline-based engines.
Producing ethanol drives up the production of corn artificially, but since most is going to ethanol and being wasted, it drives up the price of corn and corn products by producing an artificial shortage. If the lands which are going to produce corn for ethanol were being allocated efficiently to other harvestable crops, the additional yields in those crops would drive down their respective market prices due to higher supply. So really all that is happening is that we are artificially and destructively raising prices on everything while gaining nothing.
That better?