Energy is everywhere and most be free.
50% |
50% (2 votes)
I am against biofuel due the huge amount logging needed to make space to grow the crop in the first place. A short term fix with long term detrimental effects which will touch everyone.
33% |
67% (3 votes)
There are 923 million people starving. Turning corn into fuel because you want to get to the McDonald's DriveIn isn't gonna help those poor suckers.
The impact of biofuel on the foodmarket is proven, think about it.
43% |
57% (7 votes)
Branden, you're repeating twice:-) But it's right: "moderate emission savings are far outweighed by greater emissions from deforestation"
67% |
33% (3 votes)
Using food for fuel is penny un-wise and pound foolish. Especially corn! It is the basis of so many products.People are starving as we curtail food distribution to drive to Wal-Mart to buy cat food! Ehtanol is no panacea as a fuel, it can't be transported in pipes, and requires more energy to produce than oil by leaps and bounds.
50% |
50% (2 votes)
We need to use our crops to feed people.
43% |
57% (7 votes)
Stop thinking about what to burn next. The same goes for electric cars. To make electricity there are still plants burning coal. Step over your fear because the sooner the better.
Nuclear plants - The nuclear is sooo scary but counting the ration of blown up plants and land devastated to bio fuel then its major plus for electric cars
Hydrogen - Well true, Arnold Schwarzenegger has a Hydro-Hummer so we should all do it :) Nah, but true, instead of electricity it is more like a fuel.
43% |
57% (7 votes)
ANY Hydrocarbon + O2 = CO2 + Water + (in incomplete combustion, carbon (soot))
CO2 = Greenhouse Effect.
It’s that simple.
What we need is a paradigm shift to TRULY renewable sources.
43% |
57% (7 votes)
There are bio fuels that are more than from corn. Some, such as Diesel derived from algae can be produced in high density, thus less land use.
Those against it have flawed math or narrow views. Read more into it.
1. Biofuels use renewable recources.
2. It will provides employment in many rural one-industry towns critically dependent upon their natural wood resource such as in the states of Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, etc
3. It is a high-tech driven industry and has the most possibility to become a "hot" economic spot that will significantly contribute the national economical growth.
Biofuels it's good idea!
There is only so much carbon we can take from the inside of our planet and release to the outside.
Bio fuel reduces this.
One cannot use corn for the production of ethanol or turn farmlands growing food crops into bio-fuel farms without sowing the seeds of a large-scale disaster.
But molasses can be used for the production of bio-ethanol and bio-diesel can be extracted from sources like Jatropha and Pongamia that are grown on wastelands.
Bio-fuels cannot be a permanent replacement for fossil fuels. They can be a stop-gap arrangement to be used along with fossil fuels till new technologies are perfected.
I make Biodiesel from UCO (Used Cooking Oil) and help dispose of a waste material by turning it into a great fuel.
One of the people on the "against" column says it produces 25 % less power. This is not the case with Biodiesel. 5 % is closer to the mark.
Why do we have to be FOR or AGAINST? Surely, like anything, biofuels have a place in the spectrum of solutions to climate change. No one would, in their right mind, support clearing forest to plant biofuel crops, nor advocate diverting food crops to produce fuel. However I can see a place for biodiesel made from algae or WVO supplying heavy transport vehicles. Lets steer clear of silver bullet solutions and focus on holistic solutions.
I voted for biofuels but my true feelings dictate that I clarify. I personally believe biofuels as they are currently mandated is complete and utter nonsense, both economically and environmentally. However, the pickle we find ourselves in is one that requires solutions we have yet to find. The very solution COULD be biofuels.