Comments

• Lawrence Berkeley Labs have good info bj on 02/26/2008 at 7:08 AM

  Posts: 29 Avg Rating:

  David Fridley out at Lawrence Berkeley Labs has good info on this. He's put together a strong empirical chain of evidence that production of Biofuels of any sort (other than perhaps waste reclamation from other uses) use almost as much energy as they create, and they decimate land that would otherwise be a carbon sponge, so they don't do much to solve the problem of CO2. If you realize that in the US there is roughly the same land being used for farm production now as in the year 1900, yet we have almost triple the population, the question gets more interesting. And if all this biomass is being used to produce fuels, how are we going to fertilize food crops? More petrochemicals? Our economy is already feeling pressure from this, as food prices rise worldwide, as was reported in the NYTimes a couple weeks ago. So the research has already been done. Now they need to cut funding to subsidies. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Lawrence Berkeley Labs have good info DJTal on 02/27/2008 at 3:49 AM

    Posts: 116 Avg Rating:

    Biofuels don't HAVE to lead to an increase in CO2 . It all depends on how the increase in production comes about . So instead of pointing out the negative potential , why not suggest ways in which in which biofuels can be produced that lead to a reduction in CO2 levels . Such as using biochar or other soil building techniques . Obviously cutting down virgin forest to create farmland would be a bad thing , but increasing the productivity of existing farmland would be a good thing . Using biofuels to run car and aeroplane engines just demostrates how wasteful the internal combustion engine is , and what a waste of valuable biofuel it is to use it for these purposes . We would do better use all the biomass in combined heat and power stations and move to more of an electric driven economy . Rate this comment: (Reply)

• NSF (non sufficient funds) & Lawrense Berkely Labs solar nano on 03/01/2008 at 7:02 AM

  Posts: 9 Avg Rating:

  Who would ever have thought three great agencies have run out of money, and are now being staffed by old dormant fossils brains.  The EPA cuts 10% of biofuel research funding?  Why?  Because the fossil fuel empire, which they emulate, turns around and volunteers to put back that 10%, but into their individual fossilized pockets. That is the reason for NSF and Lawrence Berkely Labs to decry that biofuel pollutes more than fossil fuels.  You guys are full of horse manure!  Who says you should take food off the table to make bio fuels.  Who subsidizes it.  You do!  Now you want to tell us that all of the farmers you talked and bribed into doing this are harming our country and that fossil fuels are a much better solution. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that 18 gallons per acre of corn taken off of the table using agricultural land, is better than, 33,000 gallons per acre of biodiesel algae, produced on arid land, using recycled carbon, lots of sunlight and a little water to directly generate electricity, recycling the carbon to grow more algae, to make more electricity, to power all of our transportation without the ICE (internal combustion engine), and power all of our homes and industry, with zero pollution. Along with wind, solar, waves, geothermal, hydro, and recycling our agricultural, forest and human waste into biofuels, we eliminate old fossils, coal mines, nuclear and ICE human generated global warming and climate change.  Try, "Prunes", that may help your elimination and provide some calories that might have been destined for biofuel. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: NSF (non sufficient funds) & Lawrense Berkely Labs Scottar on 03/10/2008 at 9:52 PM

    Posts: 7 Avg Rating:

    Solar Nano Your perspective on the old standards of energy is myopic. Technology can revive these old reliable standards of energy. And New revelations about climate change mechanisms show that CO2 is hardly a fart in the wind. It should have been realized from past climate data. http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong" Michael Asher (Blog) - March 6, 2008 11:02 AM New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was. That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center........... Go to website for more. What I see from these new energy sources is more chicken counting then chickens. When I was growing up it was nuclear was the all saving future energy source. It's possibilities are more viable now then back then but there is more urban hysteria to overcome and proper utilization to be implemented. It's still not the do all that it was once touted to be but it can be the backbone of the energy grid. The rest will be a mix. I don't know how someone can advocate being in balance with the earth when 98% of all species have come and gone without man's influence and the Earth is always coming up with ways to rid it's inhabitants like fleas. Gaia is no compassionate mother. The best humans can do is compromise to some sort of balance with their environment and standard of living. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	The end of corn biofuel? DennisBuller on 03/03/2008 at 6:56 PM
  Posts: 19 Avg Rating:	Let's face it, the government is not cutting subsidies the "family farmer" any time soon.   But I have high hopes all these corn ethanol refineries can be converted to cellulose ethanol production eventually.   Then we may have a winner.   Of course at that point corn will go down in price again and they will require more subsidies:)    Rate this comment: (Reply)