• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels, according to report

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Link
Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels, according to report - Times Online

Quote from article(Using fossil fuel in vehicles is better for the environment than so-called green fuels made from crops, according to a government study seen by The Times.)

And yet the EU, USA continue pumping Taxpayer money into subsidies for this type of fuel.

Comments please.

I've been saying for years that ethanol and the like were a stupid, stupid idea. Fundamental physics problem - you always lose energy in a conversion process. Burning oil to plant and grow crops to convert back into oil... yes, the Sun is an energy input, but solar gathers that energy directly and you still need fertilizers and the physical work of plowing, planting, watering, harvesting, and converting the fuel. It's a net energy loss, and the "cleaner" energy always failed to account for the energy used during production of that "clean" fuel.

Nuclear energy is the only source that can handle the sheer magnitude of the world's growing energy needs.
 
In terms of energy wasted, I'm right behind Deuce, using ethanol is hugely inefficient, and plain stupid IMO.

But at the same time, it does have a lower impact on the environment, because the carbon being released when the ethanol is burned isn't paleocarbon, therefore it isn't increasing the net amount of carbon in the environment, ergo it's not a big deal.

The problem comes in when you have to burn oil, as Deuce pointed out, to produce the crops, and then you still have to turn them into ethanol after that. If we can find a way to get better/more efficient use of ethanol while decreasing the amount of fossil fuels used to produce them, it might be a good use of our time, but I doubt that, so it seems like a waste to me.
 
Link
Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels, according to report - Times Online

Quote from article(Using fossil fuel in vehicles is better for the environment than so-called green fuels made from crops, according to a government study seen by The Times.)

And yet the EU, USA continue pumping Taxpayer money into subsidies for this type of fuel.

Comments please.

So if something is considered eco-friendly it's considered "green", even though all the global warming efforts struggle to reduce the gasses which enable photosynthesis :lol:
 
Link
Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels, according to report - Times Online

Quote from article(Using fossil fuel in vehicles is better for the environment than so-called green fuels made from crops, according to a government study seen by The Times.)

And yet the EU, USA continue pumping Taxpayer money into subsidies for this type of fuel.

Comments please.


This is why Obama's administration is transitioning away from the food based ethanol of the past decades:

DOE

"Steven Chu, head of the DOE, was equally effusive in praising the interagency biofuel focus. “If you look at the great resources in the United States, certainly agriculture is one of them. We have incredible capacity not only to grow the food we need — along with a dynamic export capability — but we can also grow a considerable (amount) of energy.”

Obama's directive is totally in line with the need “to transition to a cleaner, sustainable-energy economy and to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.”

Chu announced $786 million will be invested in the development of advanced biofuels and expansion of commercial biorefineries. The money “is intended (for) several areas. For example, it will (look at plants' integration) of biofuels, bioproducts and heat and power into a system that could prove commercial viability.”

There will also be “investments in the increase of existing commercial-scale integrated biorefineries that have been awarded in the last two years.”

Funds will also go to the three U.S. bioenergy research centers. The centers “have already shown great new advances. One example: the centers have already developed yeast and bacteria that, when fed simple sugars, can produce gasoline and diesel-like fuel.

“We'll also create an ‘algae biofuel consortium’ to accelerate the demonstration of algae (based) biofuels.”

Chu pointed to an Oak Ridge National Laboratory study that projected one billion tons of agricultural waste and crops “specifically designed for energy could be available and have minimal impact on our food production. If you transfer that billion tons of agricultural material into what we expect in ethanol, that corresponds to something on the order of 100 billion gallons of ethanol. That would go a long way towards wiping out our need to import oil.”
Major biofuel initiative pushed by Obama administration
 
Last edited:
So if something is considered eco-friendly it's considered "green", even though all the global warming efforts struggle to reduce the gasses which enable photosynthesis :lol:

That is a misconception. Carbon is necessary for life, as we are all carbon based life forms. The carbon released when ethanol is burned is not harmful to the environment because that carbon is just being moved, and was already in the environment. Carbon being released from fossil fuels such as coal, however, are not part of the environment, or haven't been for a few million years.

For this reason, and this reason alone, is the carbon released from fossil fuels harmful. It is increasing the net amount of carbon in the environment rather then just shifting the carbon from organisms to the atmosphere. If that was the case, it could easily be shifted back to organisms through photosynthesis.
 
Brazil uses sugar cane which produces more ethanol, but regardless the chemical conversion in an ICE is reduced as percentages of ethanol increase. MPG drops because the energy by volume is less.
 
Link
Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels, according to report - Times Online

Quote from article(Using fossil fuel in vehicles is better for the environment than so-called green fuels made from crops, according to a government study seen by The Times.)

And yet the EU, USA continue pumping Taxpayer money into subsidies for this type of fuel.

Comments please.

Ethanol is a sop to big agriculture that does more harm in production than it saves in pollution. We should get out of the corn-gasoline business. Ethanol is not a "green" fuel, it's a political payoff to a special interest group.
 
That is a misconception. Carbon is necessary for life, as we are all carbon based life forms. The carbon released when ethanol is burned is not harmful to the environment because that carbon is just being moved, and was already in the environment. Carbon being released from fossil fuels such as coal, however, are not part of the environment, or haven't been for a few million years.

For this reason, and this reason alone, is the carbon released from fossil fuels harmful. It is increasing the net amount of carbon in the environment rather then just shifting the carbon from organisms to the atmosphere. If that was the case, it could easily be shifted back to organisms through photosynthesis.

In 1991 Mount Pinatubo put more pollutants into the air with one belch then did all mankind, ever. 19 years later we're still here and everything is just fine.

Nature can take care of itself, global warming is bull****.
 
In 1991 Mount Pinatubo put more pollutants into the air with one belch then did all mankind, ever. 19 years later we're still here and everything is just fine.

Nature can take care of itself, global warming is bull****.

The idea that ACC will cause dramatic, and sudden effects is bull****, however, the idea is completely sound. Global climate change is occurring, and over the course of a few hundred years, it will change the way the world looks.

At this point, the process has already started in terms of a positive feedback loop, and there really isn't anything we can do except adapt to the changes as they come.
 
The idea that ACC will cause dramatic, and sudden effects is bull****, however, the idea is completely sound. Global climate change is occurring, and over the course of a few hundred years, it will change the way the world looks.

At this point, the process has already started in terms of a positive feedback loop, and there really isn't anything we can do except adapt to the changes as they come.

Now here I can agree with you. Climate change is happening. It's not that it suddenly began and now we're ****ed, it's that climate change has always been an ongoing process. My position is that there's very little locally, and nothing globally, man can do to alter it. It's a natural process perhaps negligibly impacted by our presence.

Light-bulbs shaped like curly fries will not save the day.
 
...mmmmmm curly fries....
 
Now here I can agree with you. Climate change is happening. It's not that it suddenly began and now we're ****ed, it's that climate change has always been an ongoing process. My position is that there's very little locally, and nothing globally, man can do to alter it. It's a natural process perhaps negligibly impacted by our presence.

Light-bulbs shaped like curly fries will not save the day.

I disagree with you there. I think we have impacted the natural cycles, and started the chain of events that will (eventually) lead to some change in our environment. Not trying to be a pessimist, but that will probably be a bad change. I guess all we could hypothetically do to reverse the problem is convert excess carbon into dry ice, and then launch it in giant torpedoes into the ocean. That isn't incredibly expensive, and once we remove the CO2, it stays out of the way.

PERMANENT STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
 
I disagree with you there. I think we have impacted the natural cycles, and started the chain of events that will (eventually) lead to some change in our environment. Not trying to be a pessimist, but that will probably be a bad change. I guess all we could hypothetically do to reverse the problem is convert excess carbon into dry ice, and then launch it in giant torpedoes into the ocean. That isn't incredibly expensive, and once we remove the CO2, it stays out of the way.

PERMANENT STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

I appreciate the efforts put into such storage, but imo storing nuclear fuel is of greater importance. After we have that issue perfectly resolved, then I might be interested in looking into storing excess CO2.

I respect your argument, I just think there are more pressing matters right now.
 
Ethanol is a sop to big agriculture that does more harm in production than it saves in pollution. We should get out of the corn-gasoline business. Ethanol is not a "green" fuel, it's a political payoff to a special interest group.
I have read that in producing ethanol on 20% new fuel is actually produced.
 
In 1991 Mount Pinatubo put more pollutants into the air with one belch then did all mankind, ever. 19 years later we're still here and everything is just fine.

Sorry, have to call BS on that post.

"According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Human Emissions Also Dwarf Volcanoes in Carbon Dioxide Production
Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. “If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes—one for each eruption,” says Coby Beck, a journalist writing for online environmental news portal Grist.org. “Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.”

Volcanoes and Greenhouse Gases - Do Volcanoes Generate More Greenhouse Gas Than Humans?
 
Sorry, have to call BS on that post.

Hello, you've reached Evil Conservative Industries, please leave your name, number and a brief message you will be parodied in the order received.

*beep*

Hello my name is "Catawba", I can be reached at 615-327-1323. I'm calling to complain about how you aren't falling for my hype and simply believing everything I say, because I say it, and support oppressive regulation based on my lies. I demand free hotwings!!!

poster-1-350-tn.jpg
 
http://archive.glennbeck.com/dayaftertomorrow/poster-1-350-tn.jpg

So a movie poster is what you back up your false claim's with??? :rofl

When you find something to refute this.......

"According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Human Emissions Also Dwarf Volcanoes in Carbon Dioxide Production
Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. “If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes—one for each eruption,” says Coby Beck, a journalist writing for online environmental news portal Grist.org. “Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.”

Volcanoes and Greenhouse Gases - Do Volcanoes Generate More Greenhouse Gas Than Humans?

......please let us know!
 
I disagree with you there. I think we have impacted the natural cycles, and started the chain of events that will (eventually) lead to some change in our environment.[/url]

I'm sure it DOES look like that from your classroom window..:doh
 
Can you imagine the carbon emissions a T-Rex could emit back in the day?
 
Back
Top Bottom