Biofuels are a much better option than fosil fuels, but it's still not good, and we can do much better.For example:
Sugar is bad, artificial sweeteners are much better but they are also very bad too. Although Biofuels are improving, it doesn't make it good enough. Foolish!
100% |
0% (1 votes)
I believe there is a place for biofuels in our society, however the feedstock and or the process in which the feedstock is produced must be better controlled. An interesting article from the April 11th, 2009 Economist reports a supporting theory of "biofools", but with further research there is also a case for continued production. I am still FOR biofuels as a part of the solution. http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13437705
100% |
0% (1 votes)
i think that the biofuels are going to destroy the cultivable fields of the third world countrys like argentina, the place where i live. A possible solution for this problem is to develop better power sources such as solar energy or eolic energy.
My inglish isn's very good but i only want to express this opinion that match whit the opinion of a lot of people in my country.
100% |
0% (1 votes)
After 25 years of subsidies biofuel still can't survive on it's own. If biofuel made economic sense it wouldn't have to be subsidized.
Let's subsidize biofuel research but stop subsidizing commercial production that is neither economically nor environmentally sustatinable.
100% |
0% (1 votes)
Bio fuels are definitely not a much better option than renewable energy as it is again just another source of carbon dioxide emission.
100% |
0% (1 votes)
I am against biofuel. I believe it's better to used the food to feed people than to convert it to fuel cars.
100% |
0% (1 votes)
Most people seem to be ignorant of the fact that bio fuels also release Carbon dioxide. Solar, wind and nuclear energy hold key to the future as they do not release Carbon dioxide!
100% |
0% (1 votes)
To replace gasoline in the USA alone, we would have to grow corn on every square inch of the earth.If our world is to survive, we have two choices:
1) Nuclear power
2) Wind power
Storage becomes the expensive issue. However, with Ammonia the separation of Hydrogen from Oxygen becomes less energy expensive. This allows us to convert the electricity from either of the above sources into a liquid,renewable, transportable resource. Don't fucking argue. I'm a Ph.D chemist and I'm right.
100% |
0% (1 votes)
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.
1st page seo provides organic search engine optimisation and internet marketing services. We create seo campaigns for Google, Yahoo and Bing with an aim to achieve a 1st page ranking for your website.
<a href=http://www.picktorrent.com> http://www.picktorrent.com </a>
if its done right. the alternative is much much worse.
bio fuel is an excellent energy source. it is absolutely free from pollution because tree takes its co2 from atmosphere at the time of photosynthesis and the same stored quantity of co2 is drawn in the atmosphere in the combustion of bio fuel.thats y there is no chance for co2 increment in the atmosphere...
its all good when we all back to nature, nature knows what best for us if we ever give a damn about it. so bio fuels indeed
Biofuels may sound strange why this Bio had been to this fuel also but even after introducing unleaded petrol many problems like Globalwarming.,health issues increasing and dam waste products are increasing like anything,,As a 3R practise Reduce.,Reuse.,Recycle and overcome bags of problem let it sound friedly Our Biofuel,,..///
yes i am voting for too.