FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
BBC's "jump/shark/moment"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1883962/posts
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1883962/posts
This thesis doesn’t fit with the current transfer of money to farmers.
But, but, but... biofuel SOUNDS green! Isn’t that what’s really important?
Global Warming on FreeRepublic
Don’t you just love how these liberals and their bourgeois solutions keep winding up to be a big slong up their arrogant derrieres .
Are liberals about to admit that we need to go nuclear?
Biofuel from saltwater algae does not require tractors, fertilizers, land, or fresh water. The farm "land" is 70% of Earth's surface, is flat, undeveloped, not currently owned, and not a tree to clear in sight.
Ethanol production from corn (our food now costs a lot more) is one of the dumbest ideas in the last few hundred years!
Distinguished Greens???
Hey, all I see is a major axe to grind. The immediate release of carbon referred to above is for the slash and burn practices in the rainforests. Yep, and he is dedicated to preserving the rainforests... Plus, increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases growth in the rainforest - so I can see why they would want to see continued burning of sequestered carbon from the oil and coal.
While corn and sugar cane ethanol isn’t the whole answer, cellulosic ethanol and butanol with current technology can produce about 700 gallons/acre/year with hybrid poplars vs aboout 450 gallons for corn. Advances in this technology could up that to about 1,000 gallons/acre - and our entire liquid fuel needs in the US could be produced on 180 million acres of unused farmland and conservation reserve land.
Hmmmmm, 150 Billion short rotation trees planted, harvested every 3-5 years, and they re-sprout from the stump for the next crop - see, he gets more trees, and we get the liquid fuel we need - seems like a win win to me.
Oh, then there is the myth of the energy balance - (oh, yes, and there are those tractors to run) Geesh - if you want to gripe about something, how about how many barrels of oil it takes to move a tanker one mile...(I have read that a barrel will move the QE II about 6 inches - I hate to think what a tanker takes.) but, I guess they will see what they want to see.
Now, if the Greenies and the NIMBY’s (Not In My Back Yard) would allow trees to be planted and processing plants to be built, we could tell the OPEC members to bug-off. Oh, and our dear legislators... dumb and dumber is all I can say for them. Want an example? Try this - Power plants can burn chicken litter at high temperatures with much less pollution than the coal they now burn - our legislators nixed that completely, BUT they put in a provision that would allow each chicken farm to burn the litter from their own chicken houses - no controls! He he he, so what did I suggest? Hey, I’ll start a business generating electricity from portable incinerators and move them from farm to farm... Boy, did that shake them up - of course they would legislate that practice out of existence in a heartbeat.
ping
Ethanol is a fraud?
Who knew!
Environmental Activist Funding, Agendas Exposed
Environment News | September 1, 2007 | Jay Lehr, Ph.D
Posted on 08/20/2007 2:43:22 PM PDT by vadum
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884000/posts
The Bottomless Well:
The Twilight of Fuel,
the Virtue of Waste,
and Why We Will
Never Run Out of Energy
by Peter W. Huber
and Mark P. Mills
Analysis: biofuels make less sense than forestsalmost half the US' cropland would have to be turned over to biofuel use to provide enough ethanol just for E10 (petrol with 10 percent ethanol). The numbers in Europe are similar, and devoting that much arable land to fuel production would have serious knock-on effects on food prices; Mexico has already seen corn prices triple in recent years thanks to the bioethanol frenzy. Writing in this week's Science, Renton Righelato from the World Land Trust, and Dominick Spracklen of the University of Leeds argue that it makes much greater sense to the planet to increase carbon sequestration by returning cropland to woody forest, rather than biofuel production. The increases in carbon sequestration through forest restoration are greater than the saving in CO2 emissions that would be achieved by large-scale biofuel adoption, at least with any of the currently-proposed schemes.
by Jonathan M. Gitlin
August 16, 2007
