Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: Is ethanol overhyped?

Bigthink — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:37:14 +0100

Yes, bio-diesel and E85 (85% ethanol) are being massively over-hyped by the interest groups who will benefit financially from them in the short term.

Virtually 100% of these bio-fuels today have a negative energy balance, meaning they use more fossil fuel energy than they produce in bio-fuel, bizarre as that may sound.

Without consideration of environmental destruction (water, forests...) caused by Bio-fuel production, bio-fuels use will cause more deaths than gasoline does now.
The list of negatives for bio-fuels is almost endless.

Even if cellulosic ethanol were shown to have a positive energy balance, its use would cause more deaths than gas. Bio-fuels are NOT a clean burning fuel.
I have created a pdf which will lead through some of this research at
http://edmc.net/~crystal/biofuels-worsen-problem.pdf

Last week, the UK Government's Environmental Audit Committee produced a report called "Are bio-fuels sustainable?" The announcement was: "Committee calls for moratorium on bio-fuels"
http://www.parliament.uk/eacom/

Our global environment can be destroyed very quickly if these clear warnings are not headed!

Comment on: Is ethanol overhyped?

Bigthink — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:10:45 +0100

Ethanol is not only overhyped but the whole issue of solving climate change is overhyped. It is not the only environmental issue. What about habitat destruction feed by development causing mass extinctions, the highest rate of extinction ever! Are we going to wait to save the Earth's habitats until the climate is saved?

Comment on: Is ethanol overhyped?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:34:00 +0100

Ethanol is absolutely being overhyped. It is unfortunate to say so, but among the scientific community as an alternative energy solution it is somewhat of a joke. One experience has always stuck with me. After listening to a presentation by one of the scientists who won the nobel prize with Al Gore, the scientist was asked if Ethanol was a possible solutuion as alternative energy and he literally laughed.
The problem is that Ethanol lets out huge ammounts of carbon when burned, huge. Although its benifits of weening the United States off foreign oil would be benificial it would destroy our enviornment. Ironically given the climate change we are causing, fossil fuels emit, comparitively, a very low amount of carbon.
This is certainly not to say that fossil fuels are the way to go as it is quite obvious that the huge amounts we burn is having an effect on the enviornment, and that we will soon dry the entire supply. The problems with both energy sources just expemplifies the fact that we need a reusable, non-emiting energy source.

Comment on: Is ethanol overhyped?

Bigthink — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:16:32 +0100

Cellulosic ethanol holds tremendous potential for generating fuels. Eventually we could use any biomass (beit wood pulp, ag. byproducts, switchgrass, etc.) that is available and inexpensive. Currently emphasis is on the production of grain ethanol, which is controversial for significant reasons. However, that industry is developing an infrastructure vital to our economy (and national security) because it will be used later by the cellulosic ethanol industry once that technology catches up.

Comment on: Is ethanol overhyped?

Bigthink — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:56:29 +0100

Mit Romney skirted the the rubric question "Is ethanol overhyped?" But to answer the question, "yes" I believe ethanol is being overhyped.