Posted on 10/06/2016 7:35:29 PM PDT by Lorianne
Ever since the 1973 oil embargo, U.S. energy policy has sought to replace petroleum-based transportation fuels with alternatives. One prominent option is using biofuels, such as ethanol, in place of gasoline and biodiesel instead of ordinary diesel.
Transportation generates one-fourth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, so addressing this sector's impact is crucial for climate protection.
Many scientists view biofuels as inherently carbon-neutral: They assume the carbon dioxide (CO2) plants absorb from the air as they grow completely offsets, or "neutralizes," the CO2 emitted when fuels made from plants burn. Many years of computer modeling based on this assumption, including work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, concluded that using biofuels to replace gasoline significantly reduced CO2 emissions from transportation.
Our new study takes a fresh look at this question. We examined crop data to evaluate whether enough CO2 was absorbed on farmland to balance out the CO2 emitted when biofuels are burned. It turns out that once all the emissions associated with growing feedstock crops and manufacturing biofuel are factored in, biofuels actually increase CO2 emissions rather than reducing them.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
The only practical way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is with nuclear power.
Liberals are at war with reality. People who learn to understand and deal with reality, and who become skilled at handling reality, can in most cases make a pretty good living as a direct result of practice.
As time goes on, they get better and better at handling some aspect of the real world, and they make more money, and use the techniques they've learned to control reality over a larger and larger sphere of influence. This is called "scaling," and Capitalism is the best system ever found for scaling things that work, and for automatically directing scarce resources to those who have the best talent for scaling. Those people consequently make lots of money and become "rich."
Liberals reject all that. They don't think that those who show a talent for scaling should necessarily get the most resources, and they certainly don't think those people have any right to become rich.
That's why they constantly put people in charge of things that they know nothing about. In fact, in their world, the less you know about a subject, the more you are suited to be the boss of people who do know about the subject; the experts aren't "objective" about their fields, which is a bad thing to Liberals.
This is why they constantly screw up, and when they do screw up they become the source of an endless stream of excuses, rationalizations and complaints about unfairness and conspiracies.
We knew this in the ‘70s.
Well stated.
Getting rid of Big Ethanol is an admirable pursuit.
However, Big Environment, Big Agriculture and Big Oil will fight tooth and nail to prolong this sham. They want a return on the billions they have invested.
Perhaps Trump will be interested in seeking this?
I don't agree with that 100%. But the state of nuclear power generation today is such that this option should be pursued more vigorously.
I do not see why we would want to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
I always thought that ethanol was a corny idea.
>>I do not see why we would want to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”<<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly.
This climate garbage is a naked globalist power grab that depends upon the utter thought-obedience of many people who consider themselves intelligent and educated.
HINT: They are educated fools . . . SUCKERS really . . . and this climate-change idiocy is an affront to science and reason.
Biofuel...garbage ruining engines...
The Climate Agenda is about the NWO power grab.
“Our new study takes a fresh look at this question. We examined crop data to evaluate whether enough CO2 was absorbed on farmland to balance out the CO2 emitted when biofuels are burned. It turns out that once all the emissions associated with growing feedstock crops and manufacturing biofuel are factored in, biofuels actually increase CO2 emissions rather than reducing them.”
So does ethanol production: one ton of CO2 is given off for every ton of fermented ethanol just from the fermentation itself. Now add in the fossil fuel it takes to plant, fertilize, irrigate, and harvest the corn, dry it and then heat the corn slurry to enzymatically convert the starches to sugars for fermentation, there’s a BIG net CO2 output compared to just using all of that fossil fuel to start with to directly power our engines.
CO2 is plant food. In the past we had CO2 levels multiple times greater that today. The earth flourished with dinosaurs and beast in the ocean and on the land. They flourished because of rampant growth of plants due to high levels of CO2 and the continents did not drown from melting of the ice caps. The ice caps did melt and reformed again and again and it did not have one damn thing to with CO2. It was because of orbital mechanics and the sun. They are both variable and cause ice ages and our present almost tropical climate. Historically the earth is in an ice age for most of its history. We are currently enjoying the brief interlude between long and brutal ice ages.
Ethanol is meant to be put in charred oak barrels and lovingly tendered for many years. It is then to be put in bottles and sold as sour mash whiskey.
Ethanol does not belong in my cars gas tank!
The biggest contributor to foul air is airplanes.
Back during 911
I lived in a rural eastern Colorado area where the humidity generally ran from 45-70%. Not high humidity. We had several feed lots in the area which stank to high heaven, lots of wind translates into tons of dust which carried the stink. Lots of corn grown in the area as well as alfalfa, sorgum, wheat, potatoes, onions, mellons.
Within 150 miles of an afb.
When 911 happened and the planes were grounded for a week, for the first time ever in that community, the air became clear, clean, and smelled fresh. It was even quiet. Didn’t realize that there is a lot of unnoticed sound pollution involved with air traffic till it was gone.
Didn’t realize the contribution to air pollution that planes made till they were grounded. It took a freaking WEEK for the air to clear...a WEEK! One little bitty week and the air was nearly pristine.
I don’t want to hear the BS regarding greenhouse gasses and dirty air when clearly the problem is not the every day person with a car. The problem clearly is air traffic which also includes space programs that damage the atmosphere.
Honestly, I was stunned. But what the hey...I am merely one of those low level info deplorables whose input is meaningless.
However, it’s enough for ME to know about the false taxation game without a genuine cause. Someday, all the dirty laundry will air and it won’t leave ME stuttering, that’s for sure!
Local problem with temperature inversion as was Los Angeles? Off-road diesel and ship bunker oil with high sulfur usually take the prize for noxious odor.
Most of the #6 bunker oil burners have exceeded their Mean Time Between Failure by decades, with no replacement parts availability, thus have mostly been replaced. The cost savings of the far lower particulate polluting replacements pay for those replacements within the first few years.
The only solution is pixie dust and unicorn farts!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.