Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: UpAllNight

The only way the net released will be less is if you do not convert all the coal/carbon to fuel, if you stockpile it.

The carbon containing residue is to be used for animal feed, not stockpiled. I basically see all the carbon scavanged from the atmosphere returned in a relatively short carbon cycle. The carbon corn cycle is neutral in the long run.

Reading through the conflicting reports, the whole corn ethanol fuel cycle is a net loss of fossil fuel generated energy. We will be using fossil fuel to put additional carbon into the atmosphere. Using nuclear power for ethanol production is the only way I see to avoid adding carbon.

If you are going to use nuclear, use it for all electric cars with super batteries/capacitors.


33 posted on 01/26/2007 9:12:30 AM PST by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: Cold Heart

--Reading through the conflicting reports, the whole corn ethanol fuel cycle is a net loss of fossil fuel generated energy. --

I think I see your problem. You are assumming incorrectly that it takes more than one btu of fossil fuel to create on btu of biofuel.


36 posted on 01/26/2007 9:27:31 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson