Posted on 10/16/2008 3:34:41 PM PDT by xcamel
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=alHWVvGnkcd4&refer=canada
Link only
This is important
Based on a digested compendium of what I've read, it's fairly clear that corn ethanol doesn't gain much in CO2 "savings". Biomass and cellulosic ethanol should, if the digestion process can become large-scale. So I think it depends on the source.
But large-scale production from algal ponds might be the most efficient.
So neither the “climate scientists” nor the “meteorologists” are able to accurately predict the weather near-term, but the “climate scientists” who subscribe to the pagan religion called man-made global warming think they know what sea levels and temperatures will be 50 or 100 years from now. For example, one university publication predicts that rainfall will be 8 to 10% greater in New York City by 2080. This kind of prediction is common, but it’s not science, it’s irresponsible speculation.
You could use captured CO2 from power plant emissions to force-feed the algae. As I understand it, there is already at least one prototype CO2 scrubber out there. :-)
With every mammal on earth emiting CO2 all life on earth was wiped out eons ago. Do these clowns know how stupid they look?
They all can be pollutants, if in the wrong place or concentration, but this discussion is regarding legal definitions.
CO2 is plant food.
Apparently BHO is anti-environment.
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.