autogyro wrote:I am looking forward to the gradual replacement of these oil company sponsors with the new alternate energy companies as they gain more power in the market place.
Oil companies will slowly go the way of tobacco sponsorship.
From the BBC article wrote:The grain required to fill the petrol tank of a Range Rover with ethanol is sufficient to feed one person per year. Assuming the petrol tank is refilled every two weeks, the amount of grain required would feed a hungry African village for a year.
Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans, and Southeast Asia, where oil palm plantations are destroying the rainforest habitat of orangutans and many other species. Species are dying for our driving.
The expansion of biofuels would increase monoculture farming.
If ethanol is imported from the US, it will likely come from maize, which uses fossil fuels at every stage in the production process, from cultivation using fertilisers and tractors to processing and transportation. Growing maize appears to use 30% more energy than the finished fuel produces, and leaves eroded soils and polluted waters behind.
Meeting the 5.75% (EU) target would require, according to one authoritative study, a quarter of the EU's arable land.
Using ethanol rather than petrol reduces total emissions of carbon dioxide by only about 13% because of the pollution caused by the production process, and because ethanol gets only about 70% of the mileage of petrol.
Food prices are already increasing. With just 10% of the world's sugar harvest being converted to ethanol, the price of sugar has doubled; the price of palm oil has increased 15% over the past year, with a further 25% gain expected next year.
Little wonder that many are calling biofuels "deforestation diesel", the opposite of the environmentally friendly fuel that all are seeking.
With so much farmland already taking the form of monoculture, with all that implies for wildlife, do we really want to create more diversity-stripped desert?
Others are worried about the impacts of biofuels on food prices, which will affect especially the poor who already spend a large proportion of their income on food.
donskar wrote:And yelling? It just turns people off. That is what you are doing -- not winning converts to your ideas, but rather driving them away.
andrew wrote:I would actually like to see hydrogen fuel cells developed futher. Electric cars are a non-starter but I think that hygrogen would be a suitable replacement for petrol.
JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:Third world agricultural agendas?
Bio fuels can never be sustainable while the worlds population increases. Farmers in Africa survive through 90% subsistence farming, this is not corrupt, this is cultural!
To dismiss their culture and expect them to become commercial farmers so that you and I can have "bio fuel" is ridiculous.
It is for them to decide when and what they do with their own resources.
Oil companies being vilified is just a green bandwagon. I choose to look deeper at the issues. What can replace oil today? NOTHING
What can replace oil in 10 years? Electricity? But that has a higher carbon footprint if not produced in Nuclear powerstations, So no, it cannot replace oil yet.
Bio fuels? Only if the country that sells it produces it. Why? If the price of Maize goes up to the stratosphere because Europe and the US demand it to power their cars, Poor countries will suffer and a hungry continent will grow hungrier!
People will starve and it will all be ok because we are being green right?
Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 6 guests