Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Given the global food shortage, isn't it crazy and obscene to grow huge amounts of plants that could be used as food for humans only in order to burn it in engines?
Who came up with that idea and aren't we simply trying to divert attention away from the real problem, i.e. our excessive energy consumption, by abusing the 'bio' label, which some people seem to think is a synonym for good or natural?
Given the global food shortage, isn't it crazy and obscene to grow huge amounts of plants that could be used as food for humans only in order to burn it in engines?
Who came up with that idea and aren't we simply trying to divert attention away from the real problem, i.e. our excessive energy consumption, by abusing the 'bio' label, which some people seem to think is a synonym for good or natural?
Of course it is both crazy and obscene, and only something the eco-freaks could concoct. You have to understand that they do not care about humanity. They would gladly see the entire human race extinct to support their insane agenda of "Earth First."
There are many different types of biofuel. Some more efficient than others. You have to be specific in which ones you're speaking about because some of them are great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Of course it is both crazy and obscene, and only something the eco-freaks could concoct. You have to understand that they do not care about humanity. They would gladly see the entire human race extinct to support their insane agenda of "Earth First."
Biofuels have been around since the 1880s. They aren't anything new. This isn't something "eco-freaks" concocted.
There are many different types of biofuel. Some more efficient than others. You have to be specific in which ones you're speaking about because some of them are great.
Biofuels have been around since the 1880s. They aren't anything new. This isn't something "eco-freaks" concocted.
I find it good to reuse our biomass waste this way, but planting potential food just for the sake of burning it is a completely different story.
What did they do in the 1880s? Reuse biological waste that was already there anyway, or plant stuff deliberately for that purpose?
Whatever they did, it was probably not nearly at the modern scale, where we chop down entire forests just to make room for such plants. Not to mention the enormous amounts of water wasted by growing such plants.
But for my part, growing food simply to power cars is foolish. Much better to use the same food to power people.
Why not abandon ethanol altogether and utilize glucose. It's the best bio-fuel there is. For those who don't catch the subtlety, glucose is converted to energy in the human body. I wish I didn't have to elaborate on it like a Kindergarten teacher, but too many people who post are purely reactionary and might not take the time to think about what is being said.
Last edited by OnTheLookout; 05-30-2011 at 09:51 AM..
Reason: additional thoughts
There are many different types of biofuel. Some more efficient than others. You have to be specific in which ones you're speaking about because some of them are great.
Biofuels have been around since the 1880s. They aren't anything new. This isn't something "eco-freaks" concocted.
Nobody has even considered proposing that we take food out of our mouths in order to fuel our vehicle, except for the eco-freaks. When you have to pay $11 per pound for that rib-eye you intend to have with your Memorial Day barbeque, you can thank the eco-freaks.
The most efficient sources of energy are oil, natural gas, and nuclear. If they make these prices skyrocket, then the biofuels begin to look more feasable. It's a game to grow government and control the masses.
It's equally stupid to grow massive amounts of grain, to feed livestock, to eat the livestock who consumes most of the grain. It takes roughly 13 lbs. of grain for 1 lb. of meat. Same goes for large quantites of water.
The most efficient sources of energy are oil, natural gas, and nuclear. If they make these prices skyrocket, then the biofuels begin to look more feasable. It's a game to grow government and control the masses.
How are you defining "efficient"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
