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)
The combustion engine is the culprit, regardless of the fuel. The electric car, coupled with solar/hydro/wind power is the future.
25% |
75% (4 votes)
That last thing we want to do is start burning food.
67% |
33% (3 votes)
Bio fuels are part of an interim solution for our demand on energy.
Bio fuels are carbon neutral, when farmed correctly.
Existing engines can be converted. Reducing time, resources and money.
Bio fuels should be STRICTLY monitored and grown LOCALLY and not transported great distances.
They are part of an overall solution for energy combined with wind, tidal, solar, hydro, geothermal and much more. No ONE solution will be the best but a mixture based on the local environment.
75% |
25% (4 votes)
We already have issues with food. Whatever happened to hydro-powered vehicles? Why are we investing in something that will further damage our environment rather than really cool cars that will, instead, help the environment and put water back in? I'm sure that there's a catch with hydro-powered vehicles, but I don't think that it'll be as large of a toll as taking food out of the mouths of people to power vehicles and create even further deforestation in order to have a means for this end.
100% |
0% (7 votes)
i recently did the math. It would require us to use 96% of the US land mass for biofuel just to power the current number of cars on the road.
it takes 300+ gallons of diesel to farm 1 acre of biofuel. 1 acre = 75 gallons of biofuel.
63% |
38% (32 votes)
I am against biofuels because it eat's up our food resources, I am a proponent for hydrogen rather than biofuels due to the fact it burns cleanly and overall is safe.
65% |
35% (37 votes)
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.
A robust biofuels industry will help reduce GHG emissions from biomass decay of the growing biowaste problems we face now and in the future. It can be used to clean up disaster debris from hurricanes and floods; divert urban waste from landfills; and salvage wood from wildfires and forest bug infestations. Urbanites need this industry to help rural communities become stronger.
biofuels made from recycled products is good. biofuels made from land clearing is bad.
I am for and against. Yes, Biofuels are helping a bit with the problems of global warming, but think of it this way, its still burning fuel. No matter what it is its still going to damage the world some how or another.
Personally, everything should be powered by batteries. Big huge rechargable batteries! Plug 'em in, charge 'em up, hook 'em up, drive away, repeat when necessary. Either that or God above granting us wings. :P
'There will be no food' argument is a falacy. Biofuels are made out of sugarcane (ethanol), sunflower and/or mamona oil (biodiesel). Today, production destined for food is mostly based on corn, soy and rice. It's a new market that opens up, not a change in the current food market.
The use of biofuels does release CO2 in the atmosphere too, obviously. But contrary to fossil fuels, this CO2 is not being introduced in the environment "for free"; instead it is already part of the natural CO2 cycle.
Biofuels MUST come from a waist source or other technology like algae (look into it)
Corn, canola, other plants like these cannot be used for efficient fuel production.
Clearing rain forests makes no sense if your goal is becoming carbon neutral. Neither does hydrogen in the short term. There is no distribution method! At least for now we need a liquid fuel at ambient temperature and pressure.
Biofuel is just the begining! :)